.« ...V-     0-:  ,- 


■■•■  y'^.^':0y-l^^ 


,      '-'.     ■*-'.    -jr-    ■  .  ^ 


TVie  plc\ae  of  fhe. 
appearanaes  ot 


W.F.  Arm'5Tror^§- 


•■(,    -.'•.'    v4 


m^H 

•  ■."•    '' ■   'S^-  . 

■'■  >!:••■ -'I 

^•-.  *      *.-•    ■.;■ 

^.''■^v '."■ '■■    *''' 

'""^^^IB^^^^I 

-.'■.■'•^   ','• 

' .-.  y  "*"  ■  - 

-':,JH| 

-v'*'^'" 

^ 

.■t     i".  .  '*   •'  ."^  ■  '\   •    J 

'  \       ■» 

■-,'  .'*      «  .' 

■■-•-     ;W  ;.->'-•.' 

*'>^*^^^^^H 

-      .  ■ :"'      ■-  '•>  ,j 

■  /' '  ^^  -. ! 

■"     '**■'■/'    " 

.'i^'  'k'lt^'-^ 

V^^                            PRINCETON,  N.  J. 

DiVyw/ow.r.D.Si^'H  /~0 

.   •     /\7- 

f^ 

'*A 


'<« 


V 


JUN  IHl^U 


.♦. 


^cmi  %^ 


THE  PLACE  OF  THE  RESURRECTION 
APPEARANCES  OF  JESUS 

William  Park  Armstrong 


Introduction:    Faith,  fact,  and  method;  the  witness  of  the  New  Testament; 
later  tradition. 

I.     The  Galilean  Theory. 

Strauss ;    Weizsacker ;    Wernle ;     P.    W.     Schmiedel ;    Harnack ; 

Rohrbach;  W.  Briickner;  Volter;  Wellhausen  ;  Kreyenbiihl. 
II.     The  Jerusalem  Theory. 

Loofs ;  Galilee  on  the  Mount  of  Olives  (Hofmann,  Resch,  etc.). 
III.     The  Double  Tradition. 

Von  Dobschtitz;  T.  S.  Rordam;  Lyder  Brun;  Riggenbach ;  Zahn ; 

Voigt ;  constructive  results ;  critical  principles. 
Appendix:     Extra-canonical  tradition — Gospel  according  to  the  Hebrews; 

Gospel  of  Peter;  a  Coptic  Document;  the  Syriac  Didascalia;  Ter- 

tullian's  Apologeticum  xxi ;   Acta  Pilati.     Abbreviations. 


THE  PLACE  OF  THE  RESURRECTION 
APPEARANCES  OF  JESUS 

The  early  Christian  community  in  Jerusalem  believed  that 
Jesus  of  Nazareth,  who  had  been  crucified  under  Pontius  Pil- 
ate, was  the  Messiah.  This  belief  according  to  the  earliest 
tradition  had  its  origin  in  the  consciousness  of  Jesus  himself, 
for  he  both  accepted  the  expression  of  it  from  others^  and 
gave  explicit  witness  to  it  by  his  own  words^  and  actions.* 
It  was  shared  by  his  disciples.  Through  his  death  an  element 
quite  incongruous  with  their  expectations  was  introduced  into 
it.^  Yet  the  belief  persisted  and  became  a  world-historic  force. 
In  the  earliest  form  of  which  we  have  knowledge, — that  is,  of 
the  faith  of  the  primitive  Christian  community — it  included 
two  distinctive  features : — the  death  and  the  resurrection  of 
Jesus.  There  are  clear  indications  in  the  Gospels  that  both 
of  these  elements  entered  into  Jesus'  conception  of  his  Mes- 
siahship;^  but  even  if  these  indications  be  regarded  merely  as 
reflections  of  early  Christian  faith  they  imply  by  contrast  a 

*Mit.  xvi.  i6;  Mk.  viii.  29;  Lk.  ix.  20. 

'Especially  in  the  self-designation  "Son  of  Man";  cf.  Holtzmann,  Das 
mess.  Bewusstsein  Jesu,  1907;  Lehrbuch  d.  mutest.  Theologie^  i,  191 1, 
pp.  295  ff. ;  Pfleiderer  Das  Urchristentuw^  usw.  i,  1902,  pp.  660  ff.  Tillmann, 
Der  Menschensohn,  BSt.  xii.  1-2,  1907 ;  Schlatter,  Der  Zweifel  an  der  Mes- 
sianitdt  Jesu,  BFTh.  xi.  4,  1907;  E.  Klostermann,  Markus,  HB.  ii.  1907, 
pp.  67  f. ;  B.  B.  Warfield,  The  Lord  of  Glory,  1907,  pp.  23  ff.,  etc. 

*Mt.  xxi.  I  ff;  Mk.  xi.  i  ff;  Lk.  xix.  29  ff. 

*Mk.  viii.  32,  ix.  10,  32,  x.  35  ff.,  xiv.  27  ff.,  51;  Lk.  xxiv.  21; 
cf .  I  Cor.  i.  23 ;  Gal.  vi.  I2ff ;  on  the  idea  of  a  suffering  Messiah  in  Judaism 
cf.  Bousset,  Religion  d.  Judentums',  1906,  p.  265 ;  Schiirer,  Gesch.  d.  jiid. 
Volkes*  usw.  ii,  1907,  pp.  648  ff. ;  J.  Weiss,  SNT.''  i,  1907,  pp.  148  ff. ; 
Schweitzer,  Von  Reimarus  zu  Wrede,  1906,  pp.  368  f.,  383  ff. ;  Volz,  Judische 
Eschatologie  usw,  1903,  p.  2^7;  Bertholet,  Biblische  Theologie  d.  Alten 
Testaments,  ii.  191 1,  p.  450. 

"  Mk.  viii.  30  f,  etc. 


310 


THE   RESURRECTION   APPEARANCES 


change  in  the  content  of  faith  which  was  not  without  a  cause. 
And  if  this  cause  be  not,  or  not  alone,  in  the  consciousness  of 
Jesus  and  his  teaching,  it  must  be  sought  in  the  experience  of 
the  disciples  subsequent  to  his  death.  How  then  did  the  faith 
in  Jesus  as  the  Messiah,  which  embraced  his  death  and  resur- 
rection, emerge  in  the  consciousness  of  the  disciples?  There 
can  be  no  doubt  that  it  did  emerge  and  that  it  did  contain  these 
elements.  This  is  proven  by  the  testimony  of  Paul.®  Con- 
verted to  this  faith  within  a  few  years  after  Jesus'  death,  he 
not  only  shared  it  from  the  beginning  of  his  missionary  ac- 
tivity,''^ but  in  it  knew  himself  to  be  in  full  accord  with  the 
early  Christian  community  in  Jerusalem.*  There  is  no  trace 
of  any  difference  of  opinion  on  this  subject.^  The  difficulties 
in  Corinth  about  the  resurrection  concerned  not  Jesus  but  be- 
lievers.^**   There  is  every  reason  to  think  that  it  had  its  origin 

*  I  Cor.  XV.  2-8:  vapibuKa  yap  vfiTv  iv  irpdyrois,  6  Kal  irapAa/3ov,  Sri  'Kpurrdi  dir^Oavtv 
vwip  Tuv  afuipTiwv  rjixQv  /card  rdj  ypacpdi,  Kal  8ti  iT<i(pr],  Kai  Sri  iy-^yeprai  r-g  ijfidp^ 
Tg  rplTT)  ACOTtt  rds  ypa(pds,  Kai  Sri  &<p0r}  Kt;^^,  elra  rots  duSeKa-  firura  Sxpdif  iirdvtt) 
irevraKOfflois  iS€\(pots  icpdva^,  i^  wv  ol  irXelovei  pAvovaiv  ^uis  dpri,  rivi^  5i  iKoifn^0ri(Tav 
(ireiTa  &<pdi}  'IaKi6/3^,  elra  tx>Ts  diroffrdXais  vdaiv  f<rx<iTov  Si  ndvTuv  wairepei  Tip  iKTp<l>- 
ftari  &<f>d7i  KdpaL. 

'It  appears  definitely  in  his  earliest  Epistle  (i  Thess.  i.  lo,  iv.  14); 
and  it  is  impossible  to  suppose  that  so  fundamental  an  element  in  his 
thought  could  have  been  absent  prior  to  this  and  the  fact  of  its  subse- 
quent introduction  have  left  no  trace  in  his  Epistles.  The  character  of 
his  pre-Christian  activity  (Gal.  i.  14,  24;  I  Cor.  xv.  9),  the  manner  of 
his  conversion  (Gal.  i.  16,  cf.  i.  2;  i  Cor.  ix.  i,  xv.  8;  cf.  Acts  ix.  3  ff. ; 
xxii.  6  ff. ;  xxvi.  12  ff.)  and  the  close  association  of  the  resurrection  and 
the  exaltation  of  Jesus  (Rom.  i.  4;  viii.  34)  require  the  presence  of  this 
element  in  Paul's  faith  from  its  inception. 

*  I  Cor.  XV.  I  ff. ;  Gal.  i.  18  f . 

*As  there  viras  about  other  matters  touching  the  relation  of  the  Gentile 
Christians  to  the  ceremonial  law ;  cf.  the  significant  statement  of  Weiz- 
sacker  {Das  apostolische  Zeitalter  der  christlichen  Kirche^,  1892,  pp.  i6f) 
in  regard  to  the  fundamental  agreement  of  Paul  and  the  early  Church 
in  the  christology  which  grew  out  of  the  common  belief  in  the  resur- 
rection; cf.  also  F.  Dibelius,  Das  Abendmahl,  1911,  pp.  i  ff. 

*•  Paul's  argument  for  the  resurrection  of  believers  in  i  Cor.  xv.  is 
based  upon  the  resurrection  of  Jesus  as  a  premise  of  fact  about  which 
all  were  agreed.  Kirsopp  Lake  says  {The  Earlier  Epistles  of  St.  Paul, 
1911,  pp.  215  f)  ;  "  It  is  clear  from  i  Cor.  xv.  that  there  was  a  party  at  Cor- 
inth which  denied  that  there  would  ever  be  a  resurrection  of  the  dead.  It 
is  also  plain  that  there  was  nevertheless  no  dispute  as  to  the  resurrection  of 


THE  RESURRECTION  APPEARANCES 


3" 


on  the  third  day  after  Jesus'  death, — on  the  first  Easter  Sun- 
day, when  the  sepulchre  of  Jesus  was  found  empty ^^  and 
Jesus  appeared  to  Peter  and  to  others. 

In  the  earliest  documentary  evidence  Jesus  himself  is  rep- 
resented as  the  cause  of  this  faith.  His  death  was  a  well  ac- 
credited fact.  Belief  in  his  resurrection  is  attributed  to  the 
self-manifestations  of  Jesus  to  his  disciples  and  others  by 
which  he  convinced  them  of  his  triumph  over  death;  and 
this  in  turn  gave  to  the  empty  tomb — a  fact  of  their  experi- 
ence^-—  its  true  explanation. 

The  New  Testament  accounts  of  the  self -manifestations  or 
appearances  of  Jesus  constitute  an  important  element  in  the  ex- 
Christ,  for  the  whole  argument  of  St.  Paul  is  based  on  the  fact  that  there 
was  a  general  consent  on  that  subject.  It  has  sometimes  been  thought 
that  this  implies  that  the  Corinthians  had  no  hope  of  any  future  life  be- 
yond death.  But  this  view  is  an  unjustified  conclusion  from  i  Cor.  xv. 
17-19.  St.  Paul  is  here  arguing  that  there  must  be  a  resurrection,  because 
a  future  life  is  impossible  without  one,  and  that  the  hope  of  the  Chris- 
tian to  share  in  the  life  of  Christ  necessitates  that  he  should  rise  from 
the  dead  just  as  Christ  did.  Moreover,  the  idea  that  there  was  no  future 
life  is  as  wholly  foreign  to  the  point  of  view  of  the  "Mystery  Religions" 
of  the  Corinthian  world,  as  it  was  to  that  of  Jewish  theology.  The  ques- 
tion was  not  whether  there  would  be  a  future  life,  but  whether  a  future 
life  must  be  attained  by  means  of  a  resurrection,  and  St.  Paul's  argument 
is  that  in  the  first  place  the  past  resurrection  of  Christ  is  positive  evidence 
for  the  future  resurrection  of  Christians,  and  in  the  second  place  that 
the  conception  of  a  resurrection  is  central  and  essential  in  Christianity, 
which  offers  no  hope  of  a  future  life  for  the  dead  apart  from  a  resur- 
rection." Cf.  also  Lake's  estimate  of  the  significance  to  be  attached  to 
the  elements  of  Christian  faith  held  in  common  by  Paul  and  his  readers 
and  therefore  presupposed  in  his  Epistles,  ibid.,  pp.  115,  132  f.,  233  n.,  277, 
424,  437,  and  Exp.  1909,  i,  p.  506. 

"  This  is  witnessed  by  all  the  Gospels  and  is  implied  in  i  Cor.  xv.  3  f. 
by  the  close  association  of  the  burial  and  the  resurrection  on  the  third 
day.  It  was  thus  part  of  the  primitive  apostolic  tradition.  On  the 
recent  discussion  of  the  empty  tomb  cf.  A.  Meyer,  Die  Auferstehung 
Christi  usw.  1905,  pp.  io6ff;  K.  Lake,  The  Historical  Evidence  for  the 
Resurrection  of  Jesus  Christ.  1907,  pp.  240  ff. ;  H.  J.  Holtzmann,  ThR. 
1906,  pp.  79  ff.,  119  ff.,  ThLs.  1908,  pp.  262  f. ;  P.  W.  Schmiedel,  PrM.  1908, 
pp.  I2ff;  Korff,  Die  Auferstehung  Christi  usw.  1908,  pp.  I42ff;  W.  H. 
Ryder,  HThR.  1909,  pp.  i  ff. ;  C.  R.  Bowen,  The  Resurrection  in  the  New 
Testament,  191 1,  pp.  204  ff. 
"  Cf.  Lk.  xxiv.  23 ;  Jno.  xx.  3  ff. 


312 


THE   RESURRECTION   APPEARANCES 


planation  which  the  early  Christians  gave  of  an  essential  fea- 
ture of  their  faith.  If  these  accounts  are  trustworthy,  there 
can  be  no  reasonable  doubt  concerning  the  ground  upon  which 
the  primitive  faith  in  the  resurrection  rested.  Undoubtedly 
they  reflect  the  belief  of  the  early  Christians.  But  are  they 
for  this  reason  or  because  of  their  contents  and  mutual  rela- 
tions witnesses  only  to  faith  and  not  to  fact?  Historical 
criticism,  it  is  true,  is  concerned  primarily  with  the  narratives. 
— their  exact  content,  mutual  and  genetic  relations,  and  their 
value;  but  the  final  judgment  which  it  must  render  concerning 
the  truthfulness  of  the  narratives,  their  correspondence  with 
reality,' — involving  as  this  does  the  idea  of  causation — cannot 
be  made  apart  from  a  general  world-view  or  ultimate  philo- 
sophical theory. ^^  And  since  the  end  of  the  process  may  be 
first  in  thought,  the  process  itself  will  sometimes  disclose  the 
influence  of  theoretical  considerations. 

jIn  considering  the  relation  of  early  Christian  belief  to  his- 
torical fact,  critical  investigation  enters  upon  a  historico- 
genetic  analysis  of  the  documentary  evidence  in  which  search 
is  made  in  the  details  of  the  different  narratives  for  traces  of 
the  stages  through  which  the  final  result, — i.  e.  the  belief  whose 
origin  the  narratives  professedly  set  forth — was  attained. 
Among  the  details  which  may  be  expected  to  throw  light  on 
this  process  the  indications  of  place  or  locality  in  the  narra- 
tives of  the  appearances  are  not  only  important  in  themselves 
but  have,  since  the  time  of  Reimarus,  Lessing,  and  Strauss, 
held  a  central  place  in  modern  discussion  of  the  subject. 

The  witness  of  the  New  Testament  to  the  place  of  the  ap- 
pearances is  in  general  quite  plain.  In  the  list  of  appearances 
which  Paul  gives  in  i   Cor.  xv.  5-8  no  mention  is  made  of 

"  On  this  aspect  of  historical  criticism  cf .  PrThR.  1910,  pp.  247  ff. ; 
Kiefl,  Der  geschichtliche  Christus  und  die  moderne  Philosophie,  191 1; 
and  the  discussions  of  the  "  reHgious  a  priori  "  by  Bousset,  ThR.  1909, 
pp.  419  ff.,  471  ff.  (cf.  ZThK.  1910,  pp.  341  ff. ;  191 1,  pp.  141  flF.)  ;  Dunkmann, 
Das  religiose  A  priori  und  die  Geschichte,  BFTh.  xiv.  3,  1910;  Wobbermin, 
ZThK.  191 1,  Ergdnzungsheft  2;  Troeltsch,  RGG.  ii.  pp.  1437  ff.,  1447  ff. ;  Die 
Bedeutung  der  Geschichtlichkeit  Jesu  fiir  den  Glauben,  191 1;  Mackin- 
tosh, Exp.  1911,  i.  pp.  434  ff. ;  Beth,  ThR.  1912,  pp.  i  ff. ;  also  C.  H.  Weisse, 
Evangclische  Geschichte,  ii.  1838,  pp.  441  ff. 


THE   RESURRECTION    APPEARANCES  313 

place,  although  the  Apostle  incidentally  alludes  elsewhere  to 
the  place  of  one  of  them  in  a  manner  which  presupposes  knowl- 
edge of  it.^*  In  Mt.  xxviii  two  appearances  are  narrated, — 
one  to  certain  women  in  Jerusalem  on  Easter  Sunday,^^  and 
one  at  a  later  time  to  the  disciples  in  Galilee.  ^^  Mark  in  its 
earliest  transmitted  form  ends  abruptly  at  xvi.  8  without  men- 
tion of  an  appearance;  but  the  message  of  the  young  man  at 
the  sepulchre  gives  promise  of  an  appearance  in  Galilee.^'''  Lk. 
xxiv  records  at  least  two  appearances, — one  to  Cleopas  and 
his  companion  at  Emmaus,^^  and  one  to  the  disciples  in  Jeru- 
salem on  the  evening  of  Easter  Sunday^® — allusion  being  made 
also  to  a  third,  the  appearance  to  Peter  on  Easter  Sunday  and 
by  necessary  implication  in  or  near  Jerusalem.^"  Jno.  xx  re- 
lates an  appearance  to  Mary  Magdalene  at  the  sepulchre,^ ^  an 
appearance  to  the  disciples — Thomas  being  absent — on  Easter 
Sunday  and  in  Jerusalem, ^^  and  an  appearance  to  the  disciples 
again — Thomas  being  present' — a  week  later  and  most  prob- 
ably  in  Jerusalem. ^^     Jno.   xxi   describes  an   appearance  to 

"Gal.  i.   15  f.  and  17  {^al  wdXiv  im^ffTefa  et's  AafM<TK6v). 

'*  xxviii.  9-10.  Kalidoi  'It/ctoOj  vw^vrijaev  avraii  X^yuv  x«^P^«.  «'  5^  irpoa-eXdoOffai 
■iKpdT7j<xav  aiiTov  rois  ir6Sas  Kal  irpoaeicivriaav  airr^.  T&re  X^yet  airraid  6  'Ii/troOs  /i-^  <po- 
^ei&de-  irrrdyere  airayyeCXare  rocs  dSeXtpois  fu>v  iva  dir^\dwa-iv  els  ttj;'  ToKiXalav,  KaKeT  /uc 
6\poPTat. 

^®  xxviii.  16-20 :  ol  di  ^vdeKa  /xadtfTal  iiropev0T)(rav  els  rrjv  TaXikaiav,  els  rb  6pos  ov 
ird^aro  airrois  6  'Irjcrovs,  Kal  Iddvres  avrbv  TrpoffeKivrjffav,  ot  5^  iSlffraffav.  Kai  irpocreXffwv 
6  'Ii]<rovs  eXdXr](rev  avrois  Xiywv  idddrj  /xoi  irdcra  i^ovffla  ktX. 

*^  xvi.  7 :  dXXd  virdyere  etirare  tois  /ladTjTaTs  avrov  Kal  tQ  Hirpifi  6ti  irpodyei  vp.ds 
els  Tr)v  TaXCXaiav  eKei  airrbv  6ipe(Tde,  Kadd)s  elirev  v/juy  (cf.   Mk.  xiv.  28). 

'*  xxiv.  13-35  '•  '^"■^  '^"'^  ^'^''  ^^  aiiTuv  avry  rrj  r]fiipq,  Jjcrav  Tropevbpuevoi  els  K(I)/jir]v  dir- 
exovffav  crTadiovs  e^riKovra  dird  'lepovffaXi^fi,  •g  6vofj.a  'E/i/jmoOs,  Kal  airol  u/mIXovv  irpos 
dXX^Xoi/s  trepl  TrdvTCJv  tQv  avu^e^-qK&ruv  totlituv.  Kal  iyivero  iv  rip  ofuXeiv  avrois  Kal 
ffvv^Tjreiv,  Kal  airrbs  'Irjffovs  eyylcras  avvenopevero  a&rois  KrX. 

^'  xxiv.  36  ff . :  ravra  5^  airruv  XaXoCvruv  avrbs  eary]  iv  fi^aif}  avrQv  ktX. 

^  xxiv.  33''f .  :  Kal  ebpov  TjOpoiaixhovs  rovs  'ivbeKa  Kal  roiis  (xi>v  avrois,  X^ovras  &ri 
6vT(i}S  riyipdi]  6  Kvpios  Kal  &<f>67j  'Zlp.wvi.. 

^^  XX.  11-18:  Mapla  be  eiffrriKei.  npbs  r(p  p.vrifielcf)  e^co  KXaiov<ra  ....  i(xrpd4>7]  els  ra 
orrlffw,  Kal  dewpei  rbv  'Iriaovv  iffrOra  KrX. 

^^  XX.  19-23  [24]  :  oljffTjS  odv  oyplas  r^  rjpL^pq.  iKeivrj  rrj  fuq.  (ra^^drwp  .  .  .  ijX6ev  6 
'Ifiaovs  Kal  etrrrj  els  rb  (lAffov  .  .  .  Qw/xds  8i  els  iK  rdv  5d)8eKa  .  .  .  ovk  ^v  fxer  avrwv  6re 
fjXOev  'Ir^ffovs. 

*^  XX.  26-29  :  Kal  ii£B'  T]p.ipas  oKris  irdXiv  ^<rav  effu  ol  pxxd-qral  avrov,  Kal  Qwfids  fxer 
avruv.  epxerai  6    Irjffovs  KrX. 


3>4 


THE   RESURRECTION    APPEARANCES 


seven  disciples  by  the  Sea  of  Tiberias  in  Galilee.^*  Acts  states 
that  the  period  during  which  Jesus  appeared  to  his  disciples 
extended  over  forty  days,-''  and  records  words  of  Paul  which 
point  to  Jerusalem  as  the  scene  of  the  appearances.^" 

The  most  natural  interpretation  of  this  evidence  in  its  en- 
tirety favors  the  view  that  there  were  appearances  first  in  or 
near  Jerusalem,  then  in  Galilee,  and  finally  in  or  near  Jerusa- 
lem,— neglecting  for  the  purpose  of  this  discussion  the  place  of 
the  appearance  to  Paul. 

Tradition  later  than  the  New  Testament  yields  little  or 
nothing  of  a  trustworthy  character.  Of  the  endings  which 
have  been  added  to  Mark,  the  longer-'^  is  composite  in  form, 
dependent  on  Luke  and  John,^^  and  mentions  appearances  in 
or  near  Jerusalem — to  Mary  Magdalene,  to  two  walking  in 
the  country,  and  to  the  Eleven.  This  ending  must  have  been 
added  to  the  Gospel  in  the  second  century, — probably  before 
the  middle  of  the  century  and  in  Asia  Minor. ^^  The  short 
ending^^  is  still  later.  It  reports  in  a  summary  manner  the 
delivery  by  the  women  of  the  message  of  the  young  man  to 
"  those   about   Peter ",   and  then   records   an   appearance   in 

**  xxi.  I  ff . :  fiera  ravra  iipav^puxrev  eavrov  TrdXtj'  'IijtroOs  rots  ftadriTaTi  iirl  rip  OaXdtrffifi 
TTJs  Ti^epiddoi  kt\. 

**  i.  3  :  oh  Kal  ira.p4aTrj<Tev  iavrbv  ^Qyra  /iera  to  vadeiv  avrbv  iv  iroXXois  TeKfj.r)piois,  Si' 
T)fiepQi'  TeffcepdiKovra  6irTav6pjevo%  avroit. 

'*  xiii.  31 :  6s  &<f>6ri  ivi  rj/jjpas  irXelovs  rois  (Tvvava^S.<nv  ai/r<p  a.irb  TrjS  TaKCKalas  eis 
'Itpov(xa\-fiiJL  kt\.  c£.  X.  40  :  Tovrov  6  debs  ijyeipev  iv  tj  TplT-rj  iinipq.  Kal  (dwKev  airrby 
ifupavTJ  yeviffOai,  ov  -iravrl  rifi  Xatfj,  dXXd  fjuiprvpffiv  toU  TrpoKex,(i-poToinjfUi>oi.$  inrb  rod 
6eov,  ijfuv,  o'irives  <rvve<f>6.'yonev  koI  ffvveirlofiev  avT<^  pjera  rb  dvaffTTJvaL  airrov  iK  vexpuv. 

*'  xvi.  9—20  :  dvacrds  8^  Trpwt  tt/jwttj  aaji^drov  i<pdirtj  irpCrrov  yiaplq.  tj  Ma^SaXTjy'p 
.  .  .  /*€Ta  hi  toOto  bvalv  i^  airrQv  irepivaToOffiv  i<f>avfpu)0rj  iv  eripif,  iM)p(f>rj  wopevopAvoii 
fU  dypbv  .  .  .  ^arepov  8i  dvaKeifjJvois  airroTs  toU  ^vbeKa  i(f)avep(tidr)  kt\. 

^xvi.  9 — Jno.  XX.  I,  14-17,  Lk.  viii.  2;  xvi.  10 — Lk.  xxiv.  Ii;  xvi.  12 — 
Lk.  xxiv.  12-31;  xvi.  14 — Lk.  xxiv.  41  ff. ;  xvi.  15 — Lk.  xxiv.  47;  Mt. 
xxviii.  19;  cf.  Zahn,  Einleitung^,  ii.  1907,  pp.  234,  244  f . ;  E.  Klostermann, 
Markiis,  HB.  ii.  pp.  147  f. ;  Wohlenberg,  Evang.  d.  Markus,  ZK.  ii.  1910, 
pp.  386  ff. 

"  Cf.  Zahn,  Gesch.  d,  nt.  Kanons,  ii.  pp.  910  ff. ;  Einleitung,  ii.  pp. 
232  ff. ;  Westcott  and  Hort,  The  New  Testament  in  Greek,  1882,  ii,  Appen- 
dix, pp.  29  ff. ;  Swete,  The  Gospel  according  to  St.  Mark,  1898,  pp.  xcvi.  ff. 

'"  Tldvra  8i  rd  vaprjyyeXniva  rots  Trepl  rbv  Uirpov  avyrb/xwi  i^-^yeiXav.  Merd  di 
ravra  Kal  airrbi  6  IrjcroOs  dnb  dvaroXTJs  Kal  S,XP^  St/ffewj  i^ayriffTeiXtv  5t  avrwv  rb  Upbv 
Kal  li<t>9apT0v  Kripvyp-a  riji  atojviov  aoniiplas. 


THE   RESURRECTION   APPEARANCES  315 

which  Jesus  sends  forth  through  them — i.  e.  those  about 
Peter — "  the  holy  and  incorruptible  preaching  of  eternal  salva- 
tion ".  No  mention  is  made  of  the  place  or  the  time  but  it  is 
natural  to  infer  from  the  preceding  context,  which  this  end- 
ing was  intended  to  supplement  and  complete,  that  the  place 
was  Jerusalem  and  the  time  Easter  Sunday.  A  quotation 
from  the  Gospel  according  to  the  Hebrews^^  (2nd  century) 
tell  of  an  appearance  to  James,  the  brother  of  the  Lord,  and 
to  others, — probably  in  Jerusalem^ — but  its  description  of  the 
attendant  circumstances  is  plainly  secondary.  The  Gospel  of 
Peter^-  (2nd  century)  is  dependent  on  the  canonical  Gospels 
and  distinctly  secondary  in  its  account  of  the  resurrection.  It 
does  not  record  an  appearance  to  the  women  or  to  the  disciples, 
but  seems  on  the  point  of  narrating  an  incident  not  unlike  the 
appearance  to  the  seven  by  the  Sea  of  Tiberias^^  when  the  frag- 
ment ends  abruptly.  Its  most  distinctive  feature  is  the  de- 
scription of  the  return  of  the  disciples  to  Galilee  at  the  end  of 
the  feast  in  sorrow,  apparently  without  knowledge  either  of  the 
experience  of  the  v^^omen  at  the  sepulchre  as  recorded  in  the 
canonical  Gospels  or  of  the  resurrection.  A  Coptic  document^* 
(4th  or  5th  century,  but  thought  to  embody  a  second  century 
narrative^")  contains  in  fragmentary  form  an  account  of  an 
appearance  to  Mary,  Martha  and  Mary  Magdalene  at  the 
sepulchre  and  then  to  the  disciples, — by  plain  implication,  in 
Jerusalem.  The  Syriac  Didascalia^^  (4th  century)  records  an 
appearance  to  Mary  Magdalene  and  Mary,  the  daughter  of 
James,  then  an  appearance  in  the  house  of  Levi,  and  finally 
an  appearance  to  us   (i.  e.  the  disciples), — certainly  at  first 

^  Hieronymus,  Liber  de  viris  inlustribtis,  in  Gebhardt  u.  Harnack,  TU. 
xiv.  1896,  p.  8;  cf.  Appendix,  p.  351,  I. 

^Cf.  Appendix,  p.  351,  II. 

^Jno.  xxi.  I  ff. 

**C.  Schmidt,  SAB.  1895,  pp.  705-711;  Harnack,  Theologische  Studien 
B.  Weiss  dargebracht,  1897,  pp.  1-8,  cf.  Appendix,  p.  352,  III. 

^  Schmidt  Ibid.;  Harnack  Ibid.;  cf.  Ehrhard,  Die  altchrist.  Literatur 
uiid  ihre  Erforschung  von  1884-1900,  in  Strassburger  Theologische  Stu- 
dien, 1900,  p.   146. 

'"Achelis  und  Flemming,  in  Gebhardt  u.  Harnack,  TU.  NF.  x.  1904, 
cap.  xxi ;  cf.  Hennecke,  Neutest.  Apokryphen,  1904,  pp.  292  ff. ;  Preuschen, 
Antilegomena^,   1905,  p.  81 ;  and  Appendix,  pp.  352  f.,  IV. 


3i6  THE   RESURRECTION    APPEARANCES 

near  Jerusalem  and  subsequently  in  the  place  where  this  docu- 
ment located  the  house  of  Levi,  probably  in  Jerusalem.  Ter- 
tullian^'^  speaks  of  appearances  in  Galilee  in  Judea ;  the  Acts  of 
Pilate^^  (4th  century)  of  an  appearance  to  Joseph  of  Arima- 
thea  in  Jerusalem  and  to  the  disciples  on  the  Mount  of  Olives 
in  Galilee. 

No  theory  of  the  place  of  the  appearances  can  be  based 
solely  on  the  extra-canonical  tradition.  Appeal  is  generally 
made  to  this  tradition  in  support  of  a  particular  interpretation 
of  the  primary  evidence.  Critical  analysis  of  the  primary  evi- 
dence has  yielded  but  three  theories.  The  appearances — how- 
ever conceived^ — may  be  held  to  have  occurred  in  Galilee,  in 
or  near  Jerusalem,  or  in  both  places. 

The  Galilean  Theory 

The  view  that  the  first  and  only  resurrection-appearances  of 
Jesus  took  place  in  Galilee  is  not  merely  wide-spread  but  has 
attained  the  status  of  a  "  critical  tradition  ".  It  is  closely  as- 
sociated with  the  theory  of  a  "  flight  of  the  disciples  to 
Galilee  "  on  the  night  of  Jesus'  arrest  or  not  later  than  Easter 
morning  and  without  knowledge  of  the  empty  tomb  or  news 
of  the  resurrection.^®     The  advocates  of  this  view  usually 

"  Apol.  xxi. ;  cf.  Appendix,  p.  353,  V. 

"  Tischendorf,  Evangelia  Apocrypha^,  1876,  Acta  Pilati;  cf.  Appendix, 
PP-  353  i;  VI.  Justin,  Dial.  li.  271  A,  mentions  the  intention  to  appear  again 
in  Jerusalem  (irdXtv  TrapayevTiaecrOai  iv  'lepovffaX-fin)  as  part  of  Jesus'  pro- 
phecies of  his  passion;  the  scattering  and  flight  of  the  disciples  (Mk. 
xiv.  27;  Mt.  xxvi.  31;  Mk.  xiv.  50;  Mt.  xxvi.  56)  is  retained  but  without 
intimation  of  a  "flight  to  Galilee " :  Apol.  i.  50,  86  A    Mera  o^v  rd    a-rav- 

pwBTjvai  aiirbv  Kai  ol  yvwpi/xoi  airrov  irdvres  dir^ffTTjffav,  dptnjffd/xevoi  axrrbv  tffrepov  54% 
iK  veKpQv  dvaffTdvTos  Kal  dipdivroi  avroh  ktK:  Dial.  53,  273  C  ix^ra.  yap  to  ffrav- 
pu)0TJvai  avrbv  ol  ffiiv  avrf  6yres  fiad-qral  ainoxi  BiecrKeddaOrjaav,  p.4xP^^  8tov  dviaTt)  iK 
veKpdv  Kal  iriireiKev  airrov^  Uri  ovtcjs  Trpo€ire(f>:^€VTO  irepl  airrov  iraOeiv  avrbv  kt\  :  Dial. 
106,  333  C  pjirevbrt\<sav  inl  tQ  d(f)iffTa<Tdai  airrov  Sre  iiXTavpdiOr]  ktX.  Tatian,  besidc 
Jerusalem  and  Galilee,  names  Capernaum  (cf.  Zahn,  Forschungen,  i.  1881, 
pp.  218  f ;  Bowen,  Resurrection  in  NT,  p.  426)  ;  for  still  later  literature  cf. 
W.  Bauer,  Leben  Jesu  im  Zeitalter  der  neutest.  Apokryphen,  1909,  pp.  265  f. 
**J.  Weiss,  Der  erste  Korintherbrief,  MK.  v.  1910,  p.  350,  characterizes 
the  "  flight "  theory  as  a  "  scientific  legend " ;  cf.  Schwartzkopff,  Die 
Weissagungen  Jesu  Christi  usw,  1895,  pp.  70  f.,  The  Prophecies  of  Jesus 
Christ,  etc.  1897.  PP-  ii3  f • ;  J-  A.  Cramer,  ThT.  1910,  pp.  192  ff. 


THE   RESURRECTION   APPEARANCES  317 

seek  to  distinguish  a  primary  from  a  secondary  tradition  in 
the  Gospels, — Matthew  and  Mark  being  the  representatives 
of  the  one,  Luke  and  John  of  the  other. 

Strauss  says  -.^^  "  The  most  important  of  all  the  differences 
in  the  history  of  the  resurrection  turns  upon  the  question, 
what  locality  did  Jesus  design  to  be  the  chief  theatre  of  his 
appearances  after  the  resurrection?"  After  reviewing  the 
contents  of  the  Gospel  narratives,  he  continues  :*^  "  Here  two 
questions  inevitably  arise;  ist,  how  can  Jesus  have  directed 
the  disciples  to  journey  into  Galilee,  and  yet  at  the  same  time 
have  commanded  them  to  remain  in  Jerusalem  until  Pente- 
cost? and  2ndly,  how  could  he  refer  them  to  a  promised  ap- 
pearance in  Galilee,  when  he  had  the  intention  of  showing 
himself  to  them  that  very  day  in  and  near  Jerusalem?  "  He 
quotes  the  Fragmentist  [Reimarus]  :*^  "  If  the  disciples  col- 
lectively twice  saw  him,  spoke  with  him,  touched  him,  and 
ate  with  him,  in  Jerusalem;  how  can  it  be  that  they  must 
have  had  to  take  a  long  journey  into  Galilee  in  order  to  see 
him?"'*^  "According  to  this",  continues  Strauss, ^^  "we 
must  agree  with  the  latest  criticism  of  the  gospel  of  Matthew, 
in  acknowledging  the  contradiction  between  it  and  the  rest  in 
relation  to  the  locality  of  the  appearances  of  Jesus  after  the 
resurrection;  but,  it  must  be  asked,  can  we  also  approve  the 
verdict  of  this  criticism  when  it  at  once  renounces  the  repre- 
sentation of  the  first  Gospel  in  favor  of  that  of  the  other 
Evangelists."  He  then  asks  the  question  :^^  "  which  of  the  two 
divergent  accounts  is  the  best  adapted  to  be  regarded  as  a 
traditional  modification  and  development  of  the  other  ?  ",  and 
answers  by  maintaining  the  primitive  character  of  the  Mat- 
thaean  account.  The  possibility^®  "  that  perhaps  originally 
only  Galilean  appearances  of  the  risen  Jesus  were  known,  but 
that  tradition  gradually  added  appearances  in  Judea  and  Jeru- 

*"  The  Life  of  Jesus,  translated  from  the  fourth  German  edition  by 
George  Eliot,  fifth  ed.  in  one  vol.  1906,  p.  718. 

^'Ibid.  p.  719.  "Ibid.  p.  720. 

^  Cf.  also  the  statement  (p.  724)  that  the  appearance  before  the  Apos- 
tles in  Jerusalem  could  not  have  happened  because  Matthew  makes  the 
eleven  journey  to  Galilee  in  order  to  see  Jesus. 

**Ibid.  p.  721.  *^  Ibid.  p.  721.  **  Ibid.  pp.  722  f. 


3i8  THE   RESURRECTION    APPEARANCES 

salem,  and  that  at  length  these  completely  supplanted  the 
former,  may  on  many  grounds  be  heightened  into  a  prob- 
ability ", — but  chiefly  on  the  ground  that  it  seems  to  be  "  a 
natural  idea  ". 

Better  knowledge  of  the  history  of  the  text  of  the  New 
Testament  has  eliminated  certain  features  of  Strauss'  criti- 
cism of  the  Gospels,  but  in  his  central  contention  and  in  some 
of  his  principles  he  has  had  many  followers. 

Weizsacker"*^  argues  that  if  the  disciples  of  Jesus  withdrew 
after  his  death  to  Galilee,  then  it  was  there  that  the  faith  in 
which  they  returned  to  Jerusalem  had  its  origin.  This  faith 
that  Jesus  lives,  that  he  is  risen,  which  furnished  for  Peter  as 
it  did  for  Paul  the  motive  power  of  a  life-work,  originated  in 
an  appearance  to  Peter  in  Galilee.  This  view,  he  admits,  is  not 
in  accord  with  the  representation  of  the  Gospels,  but  these  are 
held  to  be  only  secondary  sources  in  comparison  with  Paul's 
account  since  they  are  dominated  by  a  tendency  to  accentuate 
the  physical  reality  of  the  resurrection.  This  tendency  mani- 
fests itself  especially  in  their  account  of  the  empty  grave,  in 
the  report  of  appearances  in  Jerusalem  and  in  the  ascription 
of  bodily  or  physical  functions  to  the  risen  Jesus.  All  of 
this  is  in  conflict  with  Paul  v^ho  knows  nothing  of  the  empty 
grave  or  of  the  appearances  to  the  women  in  Jerusalem.  Paul 
moreover  gives  a  different  description  of  the  form  of  the  ap- 
pearances. From  the  fact  that  Paul  does  not  mention  the  ap- 
l^earances  in  Jerusalem  which  are  reported  in  the  Gospels 
Weizsacker  infers  ignorance  of  them  not  merely  on  Paul's 
part  but  on  that  of  the  leaders  of  the  Jerusalem  Church  as 
well,  for  it  was  from  them  that  Paul  received  his  information 
about  the  appearances.  In  the  earlier  form  of  Gospel  tradi- 
tion (Mt.-Mk.)  appearances  in  Galilee  are  reported,  and 
only  in  the  later  form  (Lk.-Jno.)  are  they  located  in  Jerusa- 
lem, with  ever  increasing  emphasis  of  their  physical,  sensible 
aspects.  The  first  appearance  to  Peter  finds  only  an  echo  in 
Mark^^  and  is  mentioned  by  Luke'*^  in  evident  dependence  on 
Paul.     The  Fourth  Gospel  mentions  Peter's  visit  to  the  grave 

"  Apos.  Zeitalter,  pp.  3ff;  cf.  Utitersuchungen  iiber  d.  evang.  Geschichte', 
1901,  pp.  363  ff. 
"  xvi.  7.  "  xxiv.  34. 


THE  RESURRECTION  APPEARANCES 


319 


and  only  in  the  last  chapter  an  appearance  to  him,  but  even 
then,  not  to  him  alone.  Yet  the  fact  that  the  first  appearance 
was  made  to  Peter,  Weizsacker  regards  as  historically  the 
most  certain  event  in  the  whole  of  this  dark  period,  for  it 
alone  explains  the  historical  position  of  Peter  who  was  un- 
doubtedly the  first  man  of  the  early  Church. 

Weizsacker's  statements  characterize  rather  than  ground  the 
Galilean  theory  of  the  appearances;  and  this  is  true  likewise 
of  Wernle's  more  impassioned  argument.  Wernle^*^  too  takes 
as  his  starting  point  the  flight  and  scattering  of  the  disciples  on 
the  night  of  Jesus'  arrest.  The  death  of  Jesus  seemed  for 
the  moment  to  signalize  the  triumph  of  his  enemies  and  the 
destruction  of  his  cause.  This  appeared  at  first  to  have  been 
realized  in  the  scattering  of  the  disciples.  Contrary  to  ex- 
pectation however  the  disciples  soon  assembled  again,  first  in 
Galilee  and  then  in  Jerusalem.  In  the  face  of  the  murderers 
of  Jesus  they  gave  utterance  to  the  enthusiastic  cry  "  He  is  not 
dead ;  he  lives !"  The  clever  reckoning  of  the  Sanhedrin  over- 
reached itself.  The  faith  in  the  crucified  and  risen  accom- 
plished what  the  faith  in  the  living  had  not  been  able  to 
effect, — the  founding  of  a  new  Church,  the  separation  from 
Judaism  and  the  conquest  of  the  world.  Whence  came  this 
change?  The  answer  of  the  disciples  was:  The  Lord  has 
appeared  to  us,  first  to  Peter,  then  to  the  Twelve,  then  to 
more  than  five  hundred  brethren  at  once,  then  to  James,  then 
to  all  the  Apostles.^  ^  From  these  appearances — and  the  first 
must  according  to  the  oldest  account  have  occurred  in  Galilee 
— they  inferred  the  resurrection  of  Jesus  and  his  continued 

'^  Die  Anfdnge  unserer  Religion^,  1904,  pp.  81  f . ;  cf.  Die  syn.  Frage,  1899, 
pp.  246  f.  Bowen's  view  is  not  unlike  Wernle's.  He  says  {Resurrection 
in  NT.  p.  456)  :  "  And  the  fact  that  the  disciples'  first  feeling  of  amaze- 
ment and  terror  was  immediately  swallowed  up  in  the  glad  faith  that  their 
dear  Master  is  alive  forevermore,  their  heavenly  friend  and  God's  Messiah, 
is  '  the  perfect  tribute '  to  the  marvelous  impression  his  loving  personality 
had  made  on  them.  This  is,  after  all,  the  great  miracle,  the  impress  of 
Jesus'  personality  on  his  disciples.  It  was  so  deep  and  strong,  in  a  word, 
that  they  saw  him  after  he  had  died.  This  is  the  real  secret  of  the 
'  appearances ' ". 

"  I  Cor.  XV.  5-8. 


320 


THE  RESURRECTION  APPEARANCES 


existence  in  a  glorious  state  of  being.  The  new  faith  thus 
stood  on  the  appearances  alone.  Our  judgment  concerning 
these  appearances  will  depend  in  a  measure  on  our  confidence 
in  Paul  and  his  informer;  but  ultimately  on  our  philosophical 
and  religious  standpoint — on  our  faith.  •  Purely  scientific  con- 
siderations cannot  decide  in  a  matter  that  concerns  the  in- 
visible world  and  the  possibility  of  a  communion  of  spirits; 
and,  since  for  Christian  faith  the  spiritual  world  is  a  reality 
transcending  the  sensible,  material  world,  there  should  l)e  no 
difficulty  in  believing  that  the  real  intervention  of  Jesus, 
though  mediated  by  a  vision,  is  the  ground  of  the  belief  in  the 
resurrection.  The  historian  however  cannot  rest  here,  even 
though  he  concur  in  this  judgment,  since  this  would  make  the 
origin  of  Christianity  dependent  on  chance,  as  if  the  cause  of 
Jesus  would  or  could  have  failed  apart  from  this  vision.  In  the 
person  of  Jesus  was  manifested  a  redeeming  power  too  great 
and  too  triumphant  to  have  been  destroyed  by  a  shameful 
death.  Thus  the  appearances  accomplished  their  far  reaching 
effect  not  accidentally  but  because  of  the  earlier  redemptive 
impression  of  Jesus.  . 

P.  W.  Schmiedel  has  given  a  fuller  statement  of  the  grounds 
upon  which  the  Galilean  theory  is  based.  He  says  ■?'^  "  An 
equally  important  point  is  that  the  first  appearances  happened 
in  Galilee."  For^^  "  the  most  credible  statement  in  the  Synop- 
tics is  that  of  Mt.  (and  Mk.)  that  the  first  appearances  were 
in  Galilee.  The  appearance  in  Jerusalem  to  the  two  women 
(Mt.  xxviii.  9  f.)  is  almost  universally  given  up — not  only 
because  of  the  silence  of  all  the  other  accounts,  but  also  be- 
cause in  it  Jesus  only  repeats  the  direction  which  the  women 
had  already  received  through  the  angel.  If  the  disciples  had 
seen  Jesus  in  Jerusalem  as  Lk.  states,  it  would  be  absolutely 
incomprehensible  how  Mk.  and  Mt.  came  to  require  them  to 
repair  to  Galilee  before  they  could  receive  a  manifestation  of 
Jesus.  The  converse  on  the  other  hand  is  very  easy  to  under- 
stand ;  Lk.  found  it  inconceivable  that  the  disciples  who,  ac- 
cording to  him,  were  still  in  Jerusalem,  should  have  been  un- 
able to  see  Jesus  until  they  went  to  Galilee.    In  actual  fact  the 

"£5.  iv.  col.  4063.  "'£5.  ii.  col.  1878  f. 


THE   RESURRECTION   APPEARANCES  321 

disciples  had  already  dispersed  at  Gethsemane  (Mk.  xiv.  50, 
Mt.  xxvi.  56)  ;  this  Lk.  very  significantly  omits.  Even  Peter, 
after  he  had  perceived,  when  he  denied  his  Master,  the  dangers 
he  incurred,  will  hardly  have  exposed  himself  to  these,  gratui- 
tously, any  longer.  At  the  cross  only  women,  not  disciples, 
were  present.  Whither  these  last  had  betaken  themselves  we 
are  not  told.  But  it  is  not  difficult  to  conjecture  that  they  had 
gone  to  their  native  Galilee.  The  angelic  command,  there- 
fore, that  they  should  make  this  their  rendezvous,  may  reason- 
ably be  taken  as  a  veiled  indication  that  they  had  already  gone 
thither.  The  presupposition  made  both  by  Mk.  and  by  Mt. 
that  they  were  still  in  Jerusalem  on  the  day  of  the  resurrec- 
tion is  accordingly  erroneous.  It  was  this  error  of  theirs 
that  led  Lk.  to  his  still  more  erroneous  inversion  of  the  actual 
state  of  the  facts."  But^"*  "  if  Galilee  and  Jerusalem  were  at 
first  mutually  exclusive,  both  cannot  rest  upon  equally  valid 
tradition;  there  must  have  been  some  reason  why  the  one 
locality  was  changed  for  the  other,  .  .  .  if  Mk.  and 
Mt.  had  to  fall  back  on  their  own  powers  of  conjecture, 
where  else  were  they  to  look  for  appearances  if  not  in  Jerusa- 
lem where  the  grave,  the  women,  and  the  disciples  were? 
Thus  the  tradition  which  induced  them  to  place  the  appear- 
ances in  Galilee  must  have  been  one  of  very  great  stability." 
And  again^^  *'  As  long  as  there  was  still  current  knowledge 
that  the  first  appearances  of  the  risen  Jesus  were  in  Galilee, 
the  fact  could  be  reconciled  with  the  presence  of  the  disciples 
in  Jerusalem  on  the  morning  of  the  resurrection  only  (a)  on 
the  assumption  that  they  were  then  directed  to  go  to  Galilee. 
The  natural  media  for  conveying  such  a  communication  must 
have  seemed  to  be  the  angels  at  the  sepulchre  in  the  first  in- 
stance, and  after  them  the  women.  So  Mk.  and  Mt. 
So  far  as  Mt.  is  concerned  this  direction  to  be  given  to 
the  disciples  was  perhaps  the  [or  a]  reason  _.  .  .  why  the 
women  should  be  made  to  go  to  the  grave  so  early  as  the 
evening  ending  the  Sabbath,  so  that  the  disciples  might  still  in 
the  course  of  the  night  have  time  to  set  out  and  if  possible 
obtain  a  sight  of  Jesus  within  three  days  after  his  crucifixion. 

"£5.  iv.  col.  4064.  °°£5.  iv.  col.  4072. 


322 


THE   RESURRECTION    APPEARANCES 


(b)  Yet  such  a  combination  as  this  was  altogether  too  strange. 
Why  should  Jesus  not  have  appeared  forthwith  in  Jerusalem 
to  the  disciples?  Accordingly  Lk.  and  Jn.  simply  sup- 
pressed the  direction  to  go  to  Galilee,  finding  themselves  un- 
able to  accept  it,  and  transferred  the  appearances  to  Jerusa- 
lem. Or,  it  was  not  our  common  evangelists  who  did  both 
things  at  one  and  the  same  time,  but  there  had  sprung  up, 
irrespective  of  Mk.  and  Mt.,  the  feeling  that  Jesus  must 
in  any  case  have  already  appeared  to  the  disciples  in  Jerusa- 
lem; it  presented  itself  to  Lk.  and  Jn.  with  a  certain  degree 
of  authority,  and  these  writers  had  not  now  any  occasion  to 
invent  but  simply  to  choose  what  seemed  to  them  the  more 
probable  representation,  and  then,  when  in  the  preparation  of 
their  respective  books  they  reached  the  order  to  go  to  Galilee, 
merely  to  pass  over  it  or  get  around  it  as  no  longer  com- 
patible with  the  new  view." 

This  argument  is  interesting  as  a  highly  subjective  re- 
construction of  a  possible  development  of  Gospel  tradition 
regarding  the  place  of  the  appearances  on  the  hypothesis  of 
a  "  flight  of  the  disciples  to  Galilee."  This  hypothesis  is 
maintained  against  all  the  documentary  evidence,' — the  earlier 
(Mk.  and  Mt.)  as  well  as  the  later  (Lk.  and  Jno.), 
on  Schmiedel's  own  analysis.  The  appearance  to  the  women 
in  Jerusalem — also  contained  in  a  representative  of  the  earlier 
form  of  Gospel  tradition  (Mt.) — is  rejected  on  equally 
subjective  grounds ;  while  the  exposition  of  the  origin  and 
growth  of  the  later  form  of  Gospel  tradition  as  embodied  in 
Luke  and  John  is  little  more  than  an  elaboration  of  Strauss' 
principle  that  the  tradition  which  reflects  a  "  natural  idea  " 
is  secondary.  Of  actual  evidence  in  support  of  the  Galilean 
theory  Schmiedel  offers  nothing. 

The  advocates  of  the  Galilean  theory,  finding  so  little  in 
the  Gospels  that  is  favorable  to  their  view  and  much  that  is 
opposed  to  it,  have  had  recourse  to  later  extra-canonical  liter- 
ature. When  a  fragment  of  the  Gospel  of  Peter  was  dis- 
covered and  published  in   1892,   Harnack^^  sought  to  show 

"*  Bruchstiicke  des  Evangeliums  und  der  Apokalypse  des  Petrus\  1893, 
pp.  31  ff.,  62. 


THE  RESURRECTION   APPEARANCES  323 

that  it  contained  valuable  material  from  which  the  character 
and  probable  contents  of  the  original  ending  of  Mark  might 
be  ascertained.  This  view  was  developed  by  Rohrbach^'^  in 
a  form  subsequently  approved  in  its  essential  features  by  Har- 
nack  himself.^^  From  Mk.  xiv.  28,  xvi.  7  it  is  inferred  that 
the  Gospel  in  its  original  form  narrated  an  appearance  in 
Galilee,  the  ending  having  been  removed  before  the  Gospel 
was  used  by  Matthew  and  Luke.  From  internal  indications  it 
is  inferred  that  the  original  ending  probably  contained  the 
following:  an  appearance  to  the  disciples  in  Galilee,  some 
word  of  Jesus  in  reference  to  the  continuation  of  his  work, 
ignorance  on  the  part  of  the  disciples  of  the  resurrection  until 
the  appearance  in  Galilee,  and  an  unpreparedness  of  the  dis- 
ciples for  the  first  appearance.  The  other  Gospels  contain  no 
trace  of  the  existence  of  such  an  ending,  for  they  all  imply 
knowledge  of  the  resurrection  before  the  return  of  the  dis- 
ciples to  Galilee.  The  literary  phenomena  of  the  Gospel  of 
Peter  however  show  that  Mk.  xvi.  1-8  is  the  source  of  its 
narrative  in  verses  50-57  and  it  is  thought  probable  therefore 
that  verses  58-60  depend  on  the  lost  ending.  In  these  verses 
the  disciples  are  represented  as  returning  to  Galilee  at  the  end 
of  the  feast  in  sorrow  and  therefore  without  knowledge  of  the 
resurrection.  Levi  is  called  the  son  of  Alphaeus, — a  designa- 
tion found  only  in  Alk.  ii.  14.  And  finally  the  Gospel  of 
Peter  breaks  off  just  as  it  is  about  to  narrate  an  appearance 
in  Galilee.  The  character  of  the  original  ending  of  Mark  thus 
explains  its  loss,  and  the  circumstances  of  its  loss  explain  the 
fact  that  it  was  not  known  to  IMatthew  or  Luke ;  for,  because  it 
did  not  agree  with  the  tradition  regarding  the  appearances 
which  was  current  in  Johannine  circles  in  Asia  Minor,  it  was 
intentionally  removed  and  the  secondary  ending  ([Mk.]  xvi. 
9-20)  substituted  for  it, — although  not  necessarily  at  just  the 
same  time.  The  central  point  in  the  original  ending  must  have 
been  the  restoration  of  Peter.     This  is  equally  central  in  Jno. 

'"' Der  Schluss  des  Markusevangeliuvis  usw.  1894;  Die  Berichte  i'lber 
die  Auferstehung  Jesu,  1898. 

'^  Gesch.  d.  altchr.  Lit.  bis  Eusebius,  ii.  Die  Chronologie,  i.  1897,  pp. 
696  f. ;  ThLz.  1899,  pp.  174  ff. ;  Lukas  der  Arzt,  1906,  pp.  158  f. ;  Neue  Unter- 
suchungen  zur  Apostelgeschichte,  191 1,  pp.  no  ff. 


324 


THE   RESURRECTION    APPEARANCES 


xxi.  But  this  chapter  does  not  fit  well  after  chapter  xx,  for 
it  represents  the  disciples  as  returning  to  their  fishing  and 
this  suits  only  a  time  before  they  had  learned  of  the  resur- 
rection— as  in  the  Gospel  of  Peter  and  the  original  ending 
of  Mark.  The  Gospel  of  Peter  however  is  not  dependent  on 
Jno.  xxi.  The  names  Andrew  and  Levi  and  the  designation  of 
the  appearance  by  the  Sea  as  the  third — manifestly  a  polemic 
against  its  representation  as  the  first  in  the  original  ending  of 
Mark — make  the  tlieoiy  of  dependence  unlikely.  Jno.  xxi 
(but  not  verse  7  or  the  narrative  about  John  at  the  close)  is 
either  a  paraphrase  of  the  original  ending  of  Mark  or  an 
express  criticism  of  it.  According  to  Lk.  xxiv.  34,  i  Cor.  xv.  5 
the  first  appearance  was  made  to  Peter;  and  it  is  probable 
therefore  that  in  the  original  ending  of  Mark  the  first  ap- 
pearance in  Galilee  was  represented  as  made  to  Peter  alone. 
This  was  doubtless  followed  by  an  appearance  to  the  Twelve 
(i  Cor.  XV.  5)  in  Galilee  (implied  in  Mark)  and  possibly 
in  the  evening  at  a  meal  (Lk.-Jno.).  The  alteration  to  which 
Mark  was  subjected  moreover  is  not  isolated  but  has  in  the 
other  Gospels  parallels  which  probably  had  their  origin  in  the 
same  circles.^''  This  process  of  alteration  was  dominated  by 
the  tendency  to  substitute  another  tradition  of  the  appearances 
for  that  of  the  original  ending  of  Mark,  that  is,' — to  substi- 
tute Jerusalem  for  Galilee  as  the  place  of  the  first  appearances, 
and  to  subordinate  the  appearance  to  Peter. 

The  central  contention  of  this  theory  is  the  knowledge  and 
use  of  the  original  ending  of  Mark  by  the  Gospel  of  Peter. 
But  the  evidence  for  this  is  far  from  being  conclusive.  The 
return  of  the  disciples  to  Galilee  without  knowledge  of  the 
resurrection  is  implied  in  the  Gospel  of  Peter,  but  this  is  cer- 
tainly a  secondary  feature  closely  connected  with  the  tendency 
which  characterizes  its  description  of  the  resurrection.^^  The 
coincidence  with  Mk.  ii.  14  does  not  prove  knowledge  and 
use  of  an  original  ending;  while  Luke  by  mentioning  the 
appearance    to    Peter^^    falls    out    of    its    role,    and    John's 

"'Jno.  xxi.;  Mt.  xxviii.  9-10;  Lk.  xxiv.  12;  [Mk.]  xvi.  9-20. 
**  Schubert,    Die    Composition    des    pseiidopetrinischeti    Evangelienfrag- 
ments,  1893,  pp.  140  ff. 
**xxiv.  34. 


THE  RESURRECTION   APPEARANCES  325 

"  polemic  "  third  receives  its  character  from  the  theory. "- 
W.  Briickner^^  maintains  against  Rohrbach  the  dependence 
of  [Mk.]  xvi.  9-20  on  Luke  and  John.  Lk.  xxiv  with  its  bold 
transfer  of  the  appearances  from  Galilee  to  Jerusalem  is  older ; 
but  it  is  dependent  on  Mk.  xvi.  1-8.  In  Lk.  xxiv.  6,  Mk.  xvi. 
7  (xiv.  28)  is  intentionally  changed.  The  narrative  of  the 
appearance  to  the  disciples  at  Emmaus  has  its  origin  in  the 
dogmatic  reflection  and  poetic  art  that  created  the  allegories  in 
iv.  16-30,  V.  I -10,  vii.  36-49.  Jno.  xx  is  dependent  on  Lk. 
xxiv  and  Mk.  xvi,  but  its  narrative  is  purely  allegorical,  the 
different  characters  being  merely  typical  stages  of  the  faith  in 
the  glorified  Christ.  Thus  the  tradition  which  locates  the  ap- 
pearances in  Jerusalem  is  Lucan  rather  than  Johannine.  The 
Gospel  of  Peter  and  Jno.  xxi  furnish  no  support  to  the 
Galilean  localization,  for  it  is  not  certain  that  the  former 
depends  on  the  lost  ending  of  Mark  and  the  latter  occupies 
its  proper  place  in  an  allegorical  narrative.  Matthew  indeed 
is  dependent  on  Luke  but  its  rejection  of  the  Jerusalem  for 
the  Galilean  localization  is  deliberate. 

The  theory  of  a  Lucan  transformation  of  the  primitive 
Galilean  localization  of  the  appearances  is  carried  forward  by 
Volter  in  his  analysis  of  the  Emmaus  narrative.^"*  Volter 
holds  that  Jno.  xxi  and  the  last  verses  of  the  Gospel  of  Peter 
are  derived  from  the  lost  ending  of  Mark  which  contained 
not  only  an  appearance  to  Peter  but  also  an  appearance  to  the 
disciples  in  Galilee,  in  both  of  which  Jesus  was  made  known 
in  the  breaking  of  bread.  The  Galilean  location  of  the  ap- 
pearance to  Peter  is  implied  in  Mark,  Luke,  the  Gospel  ac- 

**  Cf.  L.  Brun,  ThStKr.  1911,  p.  167.  Spitta,  Das  Johannes-Evangelium 
usw.  1910,  pp.  3  ff.,  explains  tovto  ij5-ij  rpLrov  of  xxi.  14  by  coordination 
in  the  series  ii.  11  (  Tairriv  iirolrjaev  dpxvv  tuv  ffrineiuv  at  Cana)  and  iv. 
54  (tovto  (irdXiv)  devTcpov  ffrjfieTov  iirolt^ffev  at  Cana-Capernaum).  Chapter  xxi 
was  added  and  transformed  by  a  "  Bearbeiter  "  from  a  document  which 
recounted  the  incident  of  Peter's  call  in  the  beginning  of  Jesus'  Galilean 
ministry.  But  much  of  Spitta's  literary  analysis  is  over  subtle  and  its 
subjectivity  here  is  not  transcended  by  the  proposed — but  extremely  im- 
probable— coordination  and  the  hypothesis  of  redaction. 

TrM.  1899,  pp.  41  ff.,  7(>  ff.,  153  ff. 

^  Die  Entstehting  des  Glaubens  an  die  Aiiferstehung  Jesti,  1910;  PrM. 
191 1,  pp.  61  ff. 


326  THE   RESURRECTION   APPEARANCES 

cording  to  the  Hebrews,  and  the  Didascaha.  Luke  indeed 
locates  this  appearance  near  Jerusalem,  but  Cleopas  is  simply 
a  transformation  of  Clopas^''  and  his  unnamed  companion  is 
no  other  than  Peter*^"  while  Emmaus  was  a  town  in  Galilee 
between  Tiberias  and  Tarichaa.^"  The  Gospel  according  to 
the  Hebrews  has  also  transformed  this  appearance,  substi- 
tuting, under  the  influence  of  its  Jewish  Christian  tendency, 
James  for  Peter  and  Jerusalem  for  Galilee.  The  Didascalia 
witnesses  to  it  by  its  account  of  an  appearance  in  a  house 
[of  Levi]  in  Galilee.  The  second  appearance  was  also  in 
Galilee  and  to  the  Apostles.  This  is  implied  in  Mark  and 
witnessed  to  by  Matthew,  Luke,  the  Gospel  according  to  the 
Hebrews  in  Ignatius,®^  the  Didascalia,  the  Gospel  of  Peter, 
and  Jno.  xxi.  Luke  transferred  this  appearance  also  to  Jeru- 
salem. The  appearance  to  the  Apostles  in  the  Gospel  accord- 
ing to  the  Hebrews  is  parallel  with  Lk.  xxiv. '  36ff  but  is 
drawn  from  Luke's  source,  in  which  the  location  was  Galilee 
and  the  occasion  at  a  meal.  This  is  the  situation  implied  also 
in  the  Didascalia  where  the  appearance  "  to  us  "  is  followed 
by  instructions  regarding  fasting.  This  is  the  appearance  im- 
plied likewise  in  the  Gospel  of  Peter,  for  the  mention  of  others 
beside  Peter  shows  that  the  appearance  was  not  to  Peter 
alone.  Jno.  xxi  depends  on  the  same  source  and  describes 
this  appearance  with  addition  of  distinctively  Johannine  ele- 
ments.^® 

The  subjectivity  of  Volter's  criticism  by  which  Luke  is 
transformed  into  a  witness  to  the  Galilean  localization  of  the 
appearances  reaches  its  climax  when,  in  the  attempt  to  fore- 
stall an  impression  of  arbitrariness,  it  is  said  :^^  "  H  any 
one  be  disposed  to  call  this  criticism  of  the  Lucan  narrative 
of  the  Emmaus  disciples  arbitrary,  we  reply  that  it  is  abso- 
lutely necessary  and  that  the  Apostle  Paul, — the  author  of  i 
Cor.  XV.  5^ — had  he  been  able  to  read  the  narrative  of  Lk, 
would  have  subjected  it  to  similar  treatment.  If  arbitrariness 
is  to  be  found  at  all,  then  it  is  certainly  on  the  side  of  Luke." 

*'  Identified  with  Peter  in  Die  Entstehung  usw.  p.  39. 
"*  PrM.  191 1,  p.  64.  "■'  PrM.  191 1,  p.  64. 

'^^  Ad.  Smyrn.  iii.  i,  2;  cf.  Appendix,  pp.  352  f.,  IV. 
^* Die  Entstehung  usw.  p.   52.  ''"  PrM.  191 1,  p.  65. 


THE  RESURRECTION   APPEARANCES  327 

Volter  thought  it  strange  that  no  account  of  the  appearance 
to  Peter  should  have  been  preserved  in  Gospel  tradition,  and 
upon  investigation  was  persuaded  that  it  lay  hidden  in  the 
story  of  the  walk  to  Emmaus.  His  hypothesis  however  was 
beset  with  local  diffculties,  for  this  appearance — on  the  Gali- 
lean theory — must  have  occurred  in  Galilee.  It  was  not  un- 
natural therefore  that  some  incident  with  a  distinctly  Galilean 
setting  should  prove  more  enticing  to  independent  and  hardy 
discoverers.  Mt.  xxviii.  16  mentions  a  mountain  as  the  scene 
of  the  Galilean  appearance,  and  the  Synoptic  Gospels  locate 
the  transfiguration  of  Jesus  on  a  mountain.  Moreover  the 
narratives  of  the  transfiguration  have  been  interpreted  as 
merely  symbolica^^  or  as  reflecting  a  faith  already  influenced 
by  belief  in  the  resurrection.'''-  It  was  not  surprising  therefore, 
that  Wellhausen'''^  should  venture  upon  the  supposition  that 
the  transfiguration  story  is  actually  a  resurrection  narrative 
and  perhaps  the  oldest  in  the  Gospels, — Peter  being  the  first 
to  recognize  the  transfigured  Christ. 

But  this  view  does  not  satisfy  the  statement  of  Paul,'^^  which 
implies  an  appearance  to  Peter  alone ;  and  it  leaves  no  place  for 
the  doubt  of  the  disciples. ^^  The  narrative  clearly  reflects 
some  other  incident  in  the  experience  of  Peter. '^^  For  these 
reasons    Kreyenbiihr^    rejects   Wellhausen's   theory   in    part. 

"C.  H.  Weisse,  Die  evangelische  Geschichte,  1838,  i,  p.  541;  ii.  p.  400; 
Die  Evangelienfrage,  1856,  pp.  255  ff . ;  Weizsacker,  Apos.  Zeitalter,  p.  397; 
Loisy,  Les  £vangiles  synoptiques,  ii.    1909,  p.  29. 

"Holtzmann,  HC.  i.  Die  Synoptiker^,  1901,  p.  86;  Bacon,  AJTh.  1902, 
p.  259;  Goodspeed,  AJTh,  1905,  p.  448;  Case,  AJTh.  1909,  p.  184;  cf. 
Loisy,  Evang.  syn.  ii.  p.  40;  Bowen,  Resurrection  in  NT.  pp.  4i9f;  H. 
Meltzer,  PrM.  1902,  pp.  154  ff.  (locating  the  first  appearance  to  Peter  on 
Tabor,  the  traditional  mount  of  the  transfiguration,  where  Peter  and  John 
and  Levi  had  stopped  over  night  on  their  flight  from  Jerusalem  to  Galilee). 

''^  Das  Evangelium  Marci,  1903,  p.  y7;  cf.  van  den  Bergh  van  Eysinga, 
Indische  Einfliisse  auf  die  evangelische  Erz'dhlungen,  1904,  pp.  62  f. ;  Loisy, 
£vang.  syn.  ii.  p.  39;  identified  by  W.  Erbt,  Das  Marcusevangelium  usw. 
1911,  p.  35,  with  the  ascension;  cf.  also  the  criticism  of  this  view  by 
Spitta,  ZwTh.  191 1,  p.  165. 

'*  I  Cor.  XV.  5 ;  cf .  Lk.  xxiv.  34. 

"  Mt.  xxviii.  17. 

'*  Identified  by  Kreyenbiihl  with  Acts  ii.  i  ff. 

''''  ZNW.  1908,  pp.  257-296;  van  den  Bergh  van  Eysinga,  Indische  Ein- 


328  THE   RESURRECTION    APPEARANCES 

The  transfiguration  story  was  originally  a  resurrection  nar- 
rative, but  it  does  not  recount  the  first  appearance  to  Peter. 
The  oldest  narrative  of  this  incident  is  rather  to  be  found 
in  the  description  of  Jesus'  walking  on  the  water^^  and  its 
variants.'^"  The  story  in  its  original  form  is  thought  to 
have  come  from  Peter  and  to  have  formed  part  of  the  primi- 
tive Gospel  of  the  Jerusalem  Church.®^  It  describes  in  the 
language  of  fantasy  the  experience  through  which  Peter 
passed  from  popular  ghost-fear  to  belief  in  the  resurrection, 
i.  e.  to  the  eschatologico-apocalyptic  belief  that  Jesus  was 
the  exalted  Messiah.  This  belief  transformed  both  Peter 
and  Jesus.  Through  Peter's  influence  others  were  led  to  a 
similar  faith,  first  the  Twelve,  then  more  than  five  hundred. 
This  is  the  meaning  of  the  two  narratives  of  Jesus'  walking 
on  the  water  and  the  transfiguration  on  the  mount.  Both 
are  resurrection  narratives  and  recount  the  genesis  and 
growth  of  the  resurrection-faith  first  in  Peter  and  the  other 
disciples  in  Galilee  and  then  in  the  five  hundred  or  more  in 
Jerusalem, — the  mount  in  the  transfiguration  narrative  being 
merely  the  figurative  mount  of  revelation. ^^ 

fli'isse,  p.  47;  O.  Schmiedel,  Die  Hauptprobleme  der  Leben-Jesu-For- 
schung^,  1906,  pp.  81  f. ;  cf.  Bowen,  Resurrection  in  NT.  p.  417  n.  i. 

"  Mt.  xiv.  22-23. 

"  Mk.  iv.  35-41 ;  vi.  42-52 ;  Mt.  viii.  23-2y. 

**  The  relation  of  the  variants  to  the  original  is  conceived  as  follows: 
Peter  first  told  the  story  in  Aramaic ;  this  was  translated  into  Greek  by- 
John  Mark  and  formed  the  concluding  part  of  the  primitive  Gospel  of 
the  Jerusalem  Church  before  70  AD;  it  was  then  transformed  by  a  Gen- 
tile Christian  of  the  West  into  a  magical  stilling  of  a  sea  storm ;  the 
redactor  of  Mark's  Gospel  took  the  story  of  the  storm  from  oral  tradition 
(Mk.  iv.  35-41)  and  himself  produced  another  variant  of  the  original 
(Mk.  vi.  42-52)  ;  finally  the  redactor  of  Matthew  both  preserved  the  orig- 
inal, which  he  inserted  in  Mark's  order  (Mt.  xiv.  22-23),  and  added  in 
dependence  on  Mark  his  variant  of  the  storm    (viii.  23-27). 

"  On  the  Galilean  theory  cf.  C.  H.  Weisse,  Evang.  Gesch.  ii.  349  ff..  358  f., 
386,  416;  Keim,  Geschichte  Jesu  von  Nasara,  iii.  1872,  pp.  533ff;  W. 
Brandt,  Evangelische  Geschichte,  1893,  pp.  Z37  ff- ;  Pfleiderer,  Urchristentum, 
i.  pp.  2  ff.,  395 ;  P.  W.  Schmidt,  Die  Geschichte  Jesu,  ii.  1904,  pp.  401  fT. ; 
O.  Holtzmann,  Leben  Jesu,  1901,  pp.  390  flf. ;  N.  Schmidt,  The  Prophet  of 
Nazareth,  1905,  pp.  392  ff. ;  A.  Meyer,  Auferstehung,  usw.  pp.  127  flf. ;  Bousset, 


THE  RESURRECTION   APPEARANCES  329 


The  Jerusalem  Theory 

In  opposition  to  the  theory  which  locates  the  first  appear- 
ances in  GaHlee,  Loofs,®^  in  dependence  on  the  Luke-John 
tradition,  seeks  to  estabhsh  the  theory  of  locahzation  in  and 
about  Jerusalem.  He  argues  that  the  theory  which  locates  the 
appearances  in  Galilee,  in  the  form  which  denies  as  in  that 
which  accepts  the  historicity  of  the  empty  grave  on  the  third 
day,  is  untenable.  For  the  flight  of  the  disciples^^  was  not 
a  "  flight  to  Galilee."  On  the  contrary  Mk.  xvi.  7^"^  implies 
their  presence  in  Jerusalem  on  Easter  morning.  This  theory 
moreover  finds  no  support  in  Justin. ^^  It  rests  chiefly  on 
Mark.  But  Mark  was  not  written  by  an  eye-witness,  and 
the  lost  ending  is  an  unknown  quantity.  The  Papian  tradition 
regarding  the  Petrine  source  of  Mark  may  have  had  no  other 
basis  than  i  Pet.  v.  13,  and  there  is  no  sufficient  reason  for  sup- 
posing that  the  contents  of  the  lost  ending  are  preserved  in 
Jno.  xxi.  I  Cor.  xv.  5  favors  Jerusalem  as  the  place  of  the  ap- 
pearance to  Peter.  It  is  more  probable  therefore  that  the  Mat- 
thew-Mark tradition  is,  like  the  Synoptic  account  of  Jesus' 
public  ministry,  one-sidedly  Galilean.  And  finally  Mark  is  the 
only  source  of  this  tradition ;  for  there  is  no  proof  that  Mat- 
thew had  any  other  basis  for  the  Galilean  localization.  The 
Gospel  of  Peter  depends  on  xVIark.     Lk.  xxiv.  34  cannot  be 

SNT.  ii.  p.  148;  Loisy,  Svaiig.  syii.  ii.  pp.  74iff;  Bacon,  The  Founding 
of  the  Church,  1909,  pp.  25  ff..  The  Beginnings  of  Gospel  Story,  1909,  pp. 
xvii  f.,  xl,  190  ff. ;  Edmunds,  OC.  1910,  pp.  130  ff. ;  Bowen,  Resurrection  in 
NT.  pp.  150  ff.,  430,  432  f.,  440  n.  I ;  Conybeare,  Myth,  Magic  and  Morals, 
1909,  pp.  291   f.,  301  ff. 

^ Die  Auferstehungsberichte  und  ihr  Wert,  1908;  cf.  the  account  of  the 
origin  of  the  GaHlean  tradition  by  Holsten,  Zuni  Evangeliuin  des  Paulus 
und  des  Petriis,  1868,  pp.  119,  156  ff. — under  the  influence  of  an  anti-Paul- 
ine polemic;  by  Hilgenfeld,  ZzvTh.  1868,  pp.  73f,  Nov.  Test.  ex.  Can.  iv. 
Evang.  sec.  Heb.  1866,  pp.  29  ff. — under  the  influence  of  a  redaction  favor- 
able to  the  Gentile  Christian  Church ;  by  Korff,  Auferstehung  Christi  usw. 
pp.  47  ff.,  92,  104  f. — under  the  influence  of  a  Marcan  apologetic  against  the 
derivation  of  the  appearances  from  the  empty  tomb. 

^  Mk.  xiv.  so.  •"  Also  Mt.  xxviii.  10. 

^ Dial.  53  p.  180  C;  106  p.  378  C;  Apol.  i.  50  p.  136  A;  cf.  above  note  38. 


330 


THE   RESURRECTION    APPEARANCES 


separated  from  its  context  and  assigned  to  another  (Galilean) 
source ;  and  Jno.  xxi,  although  it  describes  the  first  appearance, 
is  proven  to  be  inaccurate  by  i  Corinthians  and  may  well  be  de- 
pendent on  the  Synoptic  tradition.  On  the  other  hand  the 
tradition  of  Luke-John  is  commended  as  trustworthy  by  its 
agreement  with  Paul,  although  Luke  adds  the  appearance  to 
the  disciples  at  Emmaus  and  John  the  appearance  to  Mary 
Magdalene.  Luke  moreover  shows  by  his  narrative  of  the 
last  journey  to  Jerusalem  that  he  had  access  to  a  special 
source,  and  John  embodies  Johannine  tradition.  Mt.  xxviii. 
i6ff  may  correspond  with  i  Cor.  xv.  6,  but  Lk.  xxiv.  49  ex- 
cludes the  Galilean  localization.  The  Galilean  appearance  in 
Jno.  xxi  is  discredited  on  the  same  ground  and  also  by  internal 
inconsistency.  The  rehabilitation  of  Peter^^  manifestly  be- 
longs to  the  first  appearance.  Its  Galilean  setting  is  due  to  its 
false  connection  with  xxi.  1-14, — a  connection  which  is  shown 
to  be  unhistorical  by  Paul's  silence  and  may  have  had  its 
origin  in  Lk.  v.  1-4. 

The  two  principal  pillars  upon  which  this  theory  rests — the 
reference  of  Lk.  xxiv.  49  to  the  whole  period  between  Easter 
and  Pentecost,  and  the  silence  of  Paul — are  weak  in  themselves 
and  quite  insufficient  to  support  the  structure  that  is  built  upon 
them.  The  Marcan  tradition,  with  its  indication  of  Galilee, 
cannot  be  discredited  by  a  vague  suspicion  regarding  its  ulti- 
mate Petrine  source  or  by  the  argument  from  silence  since  the 
Gospel  in  its  earliest  transmitted  form  is  incomplete.  There 
is  no  evidence  for  rejecting  the  Galilean  location  of  the  appear- 
ance recorded  in  Mt.  xxviii.  16  ff,  for  Paul  is  equally  silent 
about  Jerusalem.  And  if  the  Mark-Matthew  tradition  gives 
evidence  of  an  appearance  in  Galilee  no  reason  remains  for 
the  proposed  transformation,  analysis  and  derivation  of  Jno. 
xxi.®^ 

'•"xxi,  15-19  (23). 

"J.  A.  Cramer's  advocacy  of  the  Jerusalem  tradition  (ThT.  1910,  pp. 
189-222)  is  scarcely  less  negative  in  its  treatment  of  the  Galilean  tradition. 
The  two  traditions  are  thought  to  be  mutually  exclusive.  All  the  documen- 
tary evidence,  it  is  held,  witnesses  to  the  presence  of  the  disciples  in  Jeru- 
salem on  the  day  of  the  resurrection,  and  the  theory  both  of  the  flight  to 
Galilee  and  of  the   first  and   special   appearance  to   Peter  in   Galilee  is 


THE   RESURRECTION   APPEARANCES  331 

In  the  interest  of  the  Jerusalem  locahzation  of  the  ap- 
pearances appeal  has  been  made  to  a  geographical  tradition  in 
which  mention  is  made  of  a  Galilee  near  Jerusalem.  Accord- 
ing to  this  tradition  the  peak  to  the  north  of  the  Mount  of 
Olives  or  the  entire  region  including  the  Mount  of  Olives  bore 
the  name  Galilee  in  the  time  of  Jesus.  The  words  of  Jesus 
and  of  the  angel  ^^  have  reference  to  this  Galilee  and  were 
so  understood  by  the  disciples.  The  appearances  therefore, 
with  the  exception  of  the  one  described  in  Jno,  xxi,  occurred  in 
or  near  Jerusalem.  Evidence  for  this  view  is  sought  in  the 
Old  Testament,  especially  in  Joshua^^  and  Ezekiel  f^  but  even 
if  the  word  was  used  of  different  parts  of  Palestine  in  the 
sense  of  boundry  and  in  particular  of  the  boundary  of  the  terri- 
tory of  Benjamin  near  Jerusalem,  this  usage  would  require 
other  evidence  to  prove  its  influence  in  the  time  of  Jesus.  For 
this,  appeal  is  made  to  the  Acts  of  Pilate^^  and  to  Tertullian.^^ 
According  to  the  one  the  Mount  of  Olives  was  in  Galilee ;  ac- 
cording to  the  other  Galilee  was  in  Judea.  If  Tertullian  knew 
the  Acts  of  Pilate,  they  must  belong  in  some  form  at  least  to 
the  second  century.  His  language^^  however  finds  a  natural 
explanation  in  the  usage  of  the  time.^^  No  other  trace  of  this 
tradition  appears  until  the  Pilgrim  literature  of  the  middle 

opposed  by  intrinsic  and  traditional  probability.  The  Jerusalem  tradition 
is  well  accredited  and  explains  the  character  of  early  Christian  faith  and 
the  origin  of  the  Church  in  Jerusalem.  Two  possibilities  are  proposed  for 
the  origin  of  the  Galilean  tradition :  either  (a)  from  appearances  there 
such  as  the  appearance  to  more  than  five  hundred  of  which  very  little 
is  known — Mt.  xxviii.  i6fif  reflecting  a  vague  Galilean  tradition  but  freely 
supplying  details  of  place  and  persons ;  or  (b)  from  an  erroneous  com- 
bination of  the  call  (Mk.  i.  16-20)  and  restoration  (Jno.  xxi.  11-19)  of 
Peter  with  a  wonderful  catch  of  fish  (Lk.  v.  i-ii;  Jno.  xxi.  2-11).  If  the 
second  of  these  possibilities  be  true,  the  whole  Galilean  tradition  must, 
as  Cramer  says  (p.  218),  be  consigned  to  the  realm  of  legend.  This  argu- 
ment, however,  in  its  negative  aspect,  like  the  argument  of  Loofs,  suffers 
from  its  insistence  on  the  exclusive  character  of  the  Jerusalem  tradition. 

'^  Mt.  xxvi.  37;  Mk.  xiv.  28;  Mt.  xxviii.  7,  10;  Mk.  xvi.  7. 

*'xviii.  11-20,  XV.  1-15.  ^xlvii.  8. 

"  Tischendorf,  Evangelia  Apocrypha;  cf.  Appendix,  pp.  353  f.,  VI. 

°"  Apol.  xxi. ;  cf.  Appendix,  p.  353,  V. 

"^  Apud  Galilaeam  ludseae  regionem. 

"  Schiirer,  ThLs.  1897,  PP-  187  f. 


332 


THE   RESURRECTION   APPEARANCES 


ages.  Use  of  it  to  interpret  the  tradition  of  the  Gospels  in 
regard  to  the  place  of  the  appearances  had  a  beginning  in  the 
eighteenth  century.  In  1832  Thilo*^^  reviewed  the  evidence 
and  literature.  Impressed  by  Thilo's  note,  R.  Hofmann'**'  in- 
creased the  references  to  the  mediaeval  Pilgrim  literature  and 
A.  Resch"^  has  sought  to  bridge  the  chasm  between  the  Acts 
of  Pilate  and  the  New  Testament  times  by  investigating  the 
Old  Testament  usage.  The  theory  has  found  advocates  in 
Lepsius,"^  Thomsen,^^  and  Kresser;^^"  but  there  has  been  no 
increase  in  the  evidence, — which  is  ultimately  reducible  to  the 
Acts  of  Pilate.  Until  these  are  shown  to  contain  a  trustworthy 
tradition  of  the  geography  of  Palestine  in  the  time  of  Jesus 
the  theory  must  inevitably  yield  before  the  plain  implications 
of  a  uniform  New  Testament  usage.^"^ 

The  Double  Tradition 

The  Gospels  witness  plainly  to  appearances  of  Jesus  in  or 
near  Jerusalem  and  in  Galilee.  This  is  true  both  of  the  Synop- 
tic and  of  the  Johannine  tradition.  Even  among  the  separate 
Gospels,  Luke  alone  records  appearances  only  in  one  general 
locality.  It  is  therefore  highly  probable  that  the  appearances 
were  not  restricted  to  a  single  place  and  that  consequently 
the  two  traditions  should  not  be  set  over  the  one  against  the 

°°  Codex  Apocryphus  Novi  Testamenti,  i.  1832,  pp.  617  ff. 

'^  Das  Leben  Jesii  nach  den  Apokryphen,  1851,  pp.  393  ff. ;  Ueber  deii  Berg 
Galilda,  1856 ;  Auf  dem  Oelberg.  1896. 

*'  Gebhardt  und  Harnack,  TU.  1894,  x.  2,  pp.  381  ff. ;  Das  Galilda  bet  Jeru- 
salem, 1910;  Der  Auferstatidene  in  Galilda  bei  Jerusalem,  191 1. 

"^  Reden  und  Abhandlungen,  iv.  Die  Auferstehungsberichte,  1902. 

'"  BG.  1906,  pp.  352  ff. 

^'^TIiQ.  1911,  pp.  505  ff. ;  cf.  Zimermann,  ThStKr:  1901,  p.  447. 

"^  Cf .  Romberg,  NkZ.  1901,  pp.  289  ff. ;  Zahn,  Gesch.  d.  nt.  Kanons,  ii. 
PP-  937  f-;  NkZ.  1903,  pp.  770  ff. ;  Edgar,  Exp.  1897,  ii.  pp.  119  ff. ;  Cony- 
beare,  StBE.  iv.  1896,  pp.  59  ff. ;  Voigt,  Die  aeltesten  Berichte  Uber  die 
Auferstehung  Jesu  Chrisfi,  1906,  p.  81;  A.  Meyer,  Auferstehung  usw.  pp. 
95  ff. ;  Harnack,  Chronologie,  i.  pp.  603  ff. ;  Schubert,  Pseudopetrin.  Evang. 
pp.  176  ff.,  185;  Stijlcken,  in  Hennecke,  Handbuch  z.  d.  nt.  Apokryphen, 
1904,  pp.  143  ff. ;  Riggenbach,  ThLBl.  1910,  pp.  537  f. ;  Bowen,  Resur- 
rection in  NT.  pp.  350  ff.,  440  n.  i ;  Moffatt,  Introduction  to  the  Literature 
of  the  New  Testament,  191 1,  pp.  254  f . ;  cf.  below  note  134. 


THE  RESURRECTION   APPEARANCES  333 

Other  as  mutually  exclusive.  It  has  indeed  been  affirmed  that 
the  opposition  of  the  Galilean  and  the  Jerusalem  tradition  con- 
stitutes the  primary  condition  of  an  intelligent  criticism  of 
the  narratives  of  the  resurrection/*^-  and  undoubtedly  this 
opinion  seems  to  have  become  so  axiomatic  an  historical 
premise  that  its  acceptance  is  no  longer  felt  to  constitute  a 
peculiar  virtue.  Certain  even  of  those  who  admit  a  fac- 
tual basis  underlying  the  two-fold  tradition  of  the  Gospels  do 
not  hesitate  to  speak  disparagingly  of  the  *'  usual  harmonistic 
method  of  addition  ".^^^  The  denial  of  the  critical  basis  of 
the  Galilean  theory  is  of  course  destructive  of  that  theory, 
and  the  method  of  addition — however  good  in  itself — can 
serve  no  useful  purpose  for  those  who  are  persuaded  that  the 
problem  demands  a  different  process  for  its  solution. 

Just  as  the  tradition  of  the  empty  sepulchre  is  retained  by 
certain  representatives  of  the  Galilean  theory  to  explain  the 
form  of  the  disciples'  faith/*'^  so  appearances  in  Jerusalem  are 
admitted  to  explain  the  origin  of  the  Lk.-Jno.  tradition  by  a 
writer  who  still  adheres  to  the  priority  of  the  Galilean  ap- 
pearances. Von  Dobschiitz^*^^  holds  that  the  first  appearance 
was  made  to  Peter  in  Galilee.  The  disciples  had  returned  in 
deep  despondency  and  were  about  to  take  up  again  their  old 
trade.  They  had  dreamed  a  dream,' — a  beautiful  dream  with 
its  vision  of  thrones  and  judgment;  but  it  was  only  a  dream, 
and  back  they  must  go  to  their  fish-nets,  when  suddenly — at 
the  psychological  moment — the  Lord  intervenes  (Jno.  xxi) 
and,  by  quickening  again  their  faith  in  his  Messiahship,  makes 
them  fishers  of  men.  Their  mission  leads  them  to  Jerusalem 
where  they  are  met  by  some  who  had  seen  Jesus.  ^*^^  Subse- 
quently Jesus  appears  to  the  five  hundred  at  Pentecost.  ^'^' 

"^'Bousset,  ThL:;.  1897,  P-  73- 

"^  von  Dobschiitz,  Probleme  des  apostoUschen  Zeitalters,  1904,  p.   10. 

^Volter,  Die  Entstehung  usw. ;  cf.  Loofs,  Auferstehiingsherichte  usw. 
pp.  18. 

^"^  Probleme  usw.;  cf.  Clemen,  Paultis  usw.  i.  1904,  pp.  204  ff. ;  Lake, 
Hist.  Evidence,  etc.,  p.  212. 

^""Lk.  xxiv.  13  f . ;  cf.  also  Reville,  Jesus  de  Nazareth,  ii.  1906,  pp.  426  ff. ; 
Stapfer,  La  mart  et  la  resurrection  de  Jesus  Christ,  1898,  pp.  231  ff. 

"'Jno.  XX.  21-23;  Acts  ii.  i  ff. ;  cf.  Ostern  und  Pfingsten,  1903;  Weisse, 
Evang.  Gesch.  ii.  p.  417;  Steck,  Der  Galaterhrief ,  1888,  p.  186;  Pfleiderer, 


334  THE  RESURRECTION   APPEARANCES 

A  less  dramatic  but  more  penetrating  discussion  of  the 
double  tradition  is  given  by  T.  S.  Rordam.^^^  Two  principal 
difficulties  confront  the  theory  of  a  twofold  location, — the 
apparent  exclusion  of  appearances  in  Galilee  by  Luke,  and 
the  apparent  exclusion  of  an  appearance  to  the  disciples  in 
Jerusalem  by  Matthew-Mark.  Rordam  seeks  to  meet  these 
difficulties  by  literary  analysis.  Luke  is  thought  to  have  fol- 
lowed a  source  of  Jerusalem  origin  in  which  two  Jerusalem 
appearances — one  on  Easter  Sunday  and  one  at  the  time  of 
the  ascension  some  forty  days  later — had  been  combined. 
The  combination  was  not  made  by  Luke  but  had  already  taken 
place  in  the  oral  tradition,  so  that  verse  47  appears  as  the 
natural  continuation  of  verse  46 ;  whereas  the  proper  place  for 
the  Galilean  appearance  implied  in  Mark  is  immediately  after 
verse  46.  As  the  result  of  this  the  command  to  tarry  in  Jeru- 
salem^"^  seemed  to  exclude  the  Galilean  appearances,  and  the 
reference  to  Galilee^^^  assumed  its  vaguer  form.  The  occasion 
of  the  Jerusalem  appearances  was  the  unbelief  of  the  disciples. 

But  are  such  appearances  really  excluded  by  the  contents 
of  the  lost  ending  of  Mark?  If  Matthew  and  Luke  used 
Mark,  and  Luke  follows  another  source  in  chapter  xxiv,  the 
contents  of  the  Marcan  ending  must  be  sought  in  Matthew.^ ^^ 

Urchristentum,  i.  pp.  10  f . ;  Harnack,  Chronologie,  i.  pp.  707  f . ;  Bowen, 
however  {Resurrection  in  NT.  pp.  430  n.  i,  433)  more  logically — but  with- 
out evidence — locates  the  origin  of  the  Church  in  Galilee. 

"*///.   1905,  pp.  769-790;  of.  also  Peine,  Eine  vorkanon.   Vberlieferung 
d.  Lukas,  1891,  pp.  y2  fF.,  160  ff. ;  Zimmermiann,  ThStKr.  1901,  pp.  438  ff. ; 
Allen,  St.  Matthew,  ICC.  1907,  pp.  302  ff. ;  B.  Weiss,  Die  Quellen  d.  Lukas- 
evangeliums,  1907,  pp.  230  fiF. 
""xxiv.  49.  ""xxiv.  6;  cf.  Mk.  xvi.  7- 

"^  Cf.  Weisse,  Evang.  Gesch.  ii.  p.  359  f. ;  Volkmar,  Die  Evangelien  usw. 
1870,  pp.  241,  608  ff. ;  Wright,  Some  New  Testament  Problems,  1898,  pp. 
122  f. ;  Goodspeed  ^/T/i.  1905,  pp.  484  ff.  says  (p.  488)  :  "The  narrative  of 
Mark,  when  it  breaks  off  with  16:8,  evidently  demands  just  two  things  for 
its  completion  ;  the  reassurance  of  the  women,  and  the  reappearance  of  Jesus 
in  Galilee.  These  two  things  Matthew  records,  and  the  conclusion  seems 
inevitable  that  he  derived  them  from  his  chief  narrative  source,  the  gos- 
pel of  Mark."  Cf.  also  Plummer,  Commentary  on  St.  Matthezv.  1910, 
pp.  412  f. ;  421  f. ;  and  on  the  other  hand  Bowen,  Resurrection  in  NT.  pp. 
164  ff.,  166  n.  2  and,  for  reconstruction  of  the  contents  of  the  lost  ending, 
pp.  161  f. 


THE  RESURRECTION   APPEARANCES  335 

Mark  cannot  have  intended  his  Gospel  to  end  with  the  words 
e^o/SowTo  7ajO,  and  neither  can  he  have  intended  to  say  that 
the  women  never  told  of  their  experience.  But  as  it  is  un- 
likely that  the  women  were  afraid  of  the  angel,  we  may  com- 
plete the  unfinished  sentence :  "  for  they  were  afraid  that  it 
might  not  be  true  ".  Consequently  an  appearance  of  Jesus 
to  confirm  the  message  of  the  angel  is  not  only  probable  in  it- 
self but  is  recorded  by  Mt.  xxviii.  9-12. ^^^  Mk.  xvi.  7  im- 
plies an  appearance  to  Peter  and  in  Galilee.  But  as  the  dis- 
ciples, according  to  Mark,  were  still  in  Jerusalem,  their  unbelief 
may  have  caused  an  appearance  there.  Matthew  indeed  repre- 
sents the  appearance  to  the  Eleven  in  Galilee  as  the  fulfilment 
of  the  promise  in  xxviii.  7  (Mk.  xvi.  7)  ;  but  the  definite  moun- 
tain in  xxviii.  16  implies  an  appearance  to  the  Eleven  in  Jeru- 
salem, and  the  doubt  of  some  in  xxviii.  17  suits  this  better 
than  a  later  occasion.  This  allusion  to  an  appearance  to  the 
disciples  in  Jerusalem  Matthew  derived   from   Mark,^^^  the 

^  Spitta,  Ztir  Geschichte  und  Litteratur  des  Urchristentunis,  iii.  2,  1907, 
pp.  112  ff.,  argues  that  inasmuch  as  Mk.  xiv.  28,  xvi.  7  imply  an  appear- 
ance in  Galilee,  the  author  must  have  intended  to  conclude  his  Gospel  with 
a  narrative  similar  to  Mt.  xxviii.  16-20.  But  Mk.  xvi.  7  contains  also  a 
message  to  be  delivered  by  the  women  to  the  disciples.  Luke  and  John 
report  its  delivery  but  Mark  closes  with  the  statement  of  a  hindrance, 
which  can,  however,  have  been  only  the  introduction  to  an  account  of  its 
removal,  and  most  naturally  by  an  appearance  of  Jesus.  General  recog- 
ition  of  this  has  been  hindered  by  the  hypothesis  that  the  oldest  tradi- 
tion— represented  in  Mark — reported  appearances  only  in  Galilee.  As  the 
Marcan  text  demands  even  more  plainly  than  Matthew  an  appearance  to 
the  women  in  Jerusalem,  Matthew  must  have  known  the  original  ending 
of  Mark  and  furnishes — rather  than  Jno.  xxi — information  concerning  its 
contents.  Cf.  also  Streitfragen  der  Geschichte  Jesu,  1907,  pp.  78  f.  where  the 
literary  parallels  are  given,  especially  the  Marcan  e(pvyov,  rpd/juos,  Kal  eKo-Taa-is 
with  Mt.  aweXdoiJcrai  raxv,  fxera  (pb^ov  Kal  x^pcis  fj.eyd\r]s ;  the  Marcan  i(popouvTO  ydp 
with  Mt.  fJ-yi<poPel(T0e,  The  criticism  of  Brun,  ThStKr.  191 1,  pp.  168  f.,  does 
not  break  the  force  of  Spitta's  argument  in  so  far  as  it  concerns  the  impli- 
cations of  the  closing  verse  of  Mark  and  the  support  that  it  lends  to 
Matthew's  report  of  the  appearance  to  the  women.  Cf.  also  Stanton,  The 
Gospels  as  Historical  Documents,  ii.  1909,  pp.  201  f. 

"'  This  is  seen  also  in  the  fact  that  Matthew  does  not  mention  the  de- 
livery of  the  women's  message  to  the  disciples,  and  in  the  fact  that  the 
mountain  in  Galilee  is  said  to  have  been  appointed — not  to  the  women — 
but  to  the  disciples.     This  allusive  or  "hinting"  feature  of  the  narrative 


336  THE   RESURRECTION   APPEARANCES 

Marcan  account  being  omitted  because  of  an  unwillingness  to 
chronicle  the  doubts  of  the  disciples. ^^^  The  original  con- 
clusion of  Mark  thus  contained,  according  to  Rordam,  three 
appearances  in  Jerusalem, — to  the  women,  to  Peter,  and  to 
the  Apostles.  Then  followed  an  appearance  to  the  disciples 
generally  in  Galilee, — agreeing  in  order  with  the  source  of 
Luke.  Mark  probably  contained  also  some  parting  appear- 
ance of  Jesus  similar  to  that  described  in  Lk.  xxiv.  47-53, 
Acts  i.  4-12,  I  Cor.  XV.  7, — for  this  was  part  of  the  apostolic 
tradition.  It  is  not  contained  in  Matthew  because  it  was 
probably  lost  from  the  copy  of  Mark  used  by  Matthew. 

Rordam's  theory  depends  mainly  on  two  things :  his  recon- 
struction of  the  source  of  Lk.  xxiv  and  his  conception  of  the 
contents  of  the  lost  ending  of  Mark.  Of  these  the  latter  is  the 
more  crucial.  Is  the  method  which  follows  Matthew  as  guide 
more  satisfactory  than  that  which  follows  the  Gospel  of  Peter? 
Must  we  be  content  with  a  non  liquet,  or  is  there  a  reasonable 
minimum  of  inference  from  Mk.  xvi.  7-8  that  may  be  safely 
made?  To  this  minimum  Lyder  Brun^^^  reckons  an  appear- 
ance before  the  disciples  in  Galilee,  but  prior  to  this  an  ap- 
pearance to  Peter  in  Jerusalem — possibly  also  an  appearance 
to  the  disciples  in  Jerusalem.  In  agreement  with  Spitta^^*^  it 
is  maintained  that  the  meaning  of  Trpod^co  in  Mk.  xiv.  28, 
Mt.  xxvi.  32  is  determined  by  the  reference  in  the  context 
to  the  shepherd  and  the  scattered  sheep.  After  his  resurrection 
Jesus  is  to  gather  his  scattered  disciples  and  lead  them  back  to 

is  responsible  for  the  impression,  produced  by  xxviii.  17,  that  some  of  the 
Apostles  doubted,  "  though  the  narrator  clearly  meant  to  say  that  the 
apostles  adored,  but  some  of  the  other  disciples  doubted"   (p.  785). 

"*  This  appears  in  the  silence  of  Matthew  about  the  doubt  of  the  women 
which  is  thought  to  have  been  the  occasion  of  the  appearance  in  xxviii. 
9-10. 

'"^ThStKr.  1911,  pp.  157-180. 

^^^  Zur  Gesch.  u.  Lit.  d.  Urchristentums,  iii.  pp.  iii  ff. ;  Streitfragen  der 
Gesch.  Jesu,  pp.  74  ff. ;  cf.  also  Zimmermann,  ThStKr.  1901,  pp. 
446  f . ;  Riggenbach,  Aus  Schrift  u.  Geschichte,  1898,  p.  138;  J.  Weiss,  SNT. 
i.  p.  208;  Cramer,  ThT.  1910,  pp.  200  ff. ;  on  the  other  hand  Bowen,  Resur- 
rection in  NT.  p.  196,  sees  in  irpod^o)  of  Mk.  xiv.  28  a  prophecy  ex  eventu 
which  witnesses  to  the  "  flight  of  the  disciples  to  Galilee " ;  cf.  pp.  148, 
200  f. 


THE   RESURRECTION   APPEARANCES  337 

Galilee.  Mk.  xvi.  7  adds  to  this  the  promise  that  the  disciples 
would  see  Jesus  in  Galilee.  The  special  mention  of  Peter  is 
due  to  the  interpretation  of  Mk.  xiv.  28  as  a  call  to  go  to 
Galilee.  But  the  silence  of  the  women  prepares  for  an  ap- 
pearance to  Peter  in  Jerusalem,  that,  being  himself  strength- 
ened, he  might  gather  the  scattered  disciples  and  lead  them  back 
to  Galilee.  11^ 

In  the  light  of  Mk.  xvi.  7  there  are  four  possible  infer- 
ences regarding  the  contents  of  the  lost  ending: 

(i)  The  women  say  nothing  and  the  disciples  return  to 
Galilee  without  knowledge  of  the  empty  grave  or  the  message 
of  the  angel, — as  in  the  Gospel  of  Peter. 

(2)  The  silence  of  the  women,  caused  as  it  was  by  fear, 
lasted  but  a  short  time,  after  which,. — having  recovered  self- 
possession — they  delivered  the  message  of  the  angel, — as  in 
the  short  ending  of  Mark.^^^ 

(3)  The  fear  of  the  women  was  overcome  by  an  appearance 
of  Jesus,  after  which  they  delivered  their  message,^ ^^ — in 
which  case  there  seems  to  be  no  place  for  a  special  appearance 
to  Peter,  unless  the  message  met  with  unbelief^^*^  and  this  was 
overcome  by  the  appearance  to  Peter. ^^^ 

(4)  Since  the  women  said  nothing  to  the  disciples  or  to 
Peter,  Jesus  appeared  to  Peter  in  Jerusalem^ ^^  and  directed  the 
disciples  to  go  to  Galilee. ^-^ 

The  second  of  these  possibilities  is  set  aside  because  it 
weakens  the  force  of  ovSevl  ovSev  eltrov  ;  the  first  because 
the  "  flight  "  theory  is  excluded  by  Mark  and  there  is  no  con- 
clusive evidence  that  the  Gospel  of  Peter  knew  the  original 
ending  of  Mark;  the  third  because  there  is  no  sufficient  evi- 
dence that  Matthew  knew  the  original  ending  of  Mark.  The 
fourth  possibility  however  avoids  both  the  weakening  of  ovhevX 
ovhev  elirov  and  the  doubling  of  the  message  to  the  women. 

"'  Cf .  Lk.  xxi.  32,  xxiv.  34 ;  i  Cor.  xv.  5. 

^^'  travra     Si  to.    iraprjyyeKn^va    rots  nepl  rhv   Tiirpov    avvT6fjius   i^riyyeiXav    kt\. 
Cf.  Mt.  xxviii.  8;  Lk.  xxiv.  9. 
"*  Mt.  xxviii.  9-10. 

'°*Lk.  xxiv.  II,  22-24;  [Mk.]  xvi.  10.  "*Lk.  xxiv.  34. 

^  Lk.  xxiv.  34 ;  cf .  xxii.  32.  ^  Mt.  xxviii.  16. 


338  THE  RESURRECTION   APPEARANCES 

The  api>earance  to  Peter  corresponds  also  with  the  special  ref- 
erence to  him  in  the  message  of  the  angel  and  with  the  place 
assigned  to  it  by  Paul.  The  parallel  with  Luke  is  close ;  and  it 
is  not  improbable  that  the  appearance  to  James  in  the  Gospel 
according  to  the  Hebrews  is  simply  a  transformation  of  the 
appearance  to  Peter.  The  reference  to  Galilee  in  Mark  and 
Matthew  is  to  be  explained  by  the  prominence  assigned  to 
Galilee  in  their  account  of  the  ministry  of  Jesus, ^-■*  by  the 
prophecy  in  Mk.  xiv.  28,  and  by  the  significance  of  the  Galilean 
appearances  for  the  vocation^ ^^  of  the  Apostles.  In  Luke  the 
intervening  step  between  the  first  and  the  last  appearances 
in  Jerusalem — the  appearances  in  Galilee — fell  away  because 
the  later  activity  of  the  Apostles,  in  which  Luke  was  particu- 
larly interested,  was  connected  with  Jerusalem. 

Even  a  minimum  of  inference  from  Mk.  xvi.  7-8  regarding 
the  contents  of  the  original  ending  of  the  Gospel  is  rejected  by 
those  who  maintain  that  the  Gospel  ended  originally — whether 
in  intention  or  in  fact — with  xvi.   8.^-*^     The   statement  of 

^  Spitta,  Streitfragen,  p.  81,  formulates  the  problem  concerning  the  place 
of  the  appearances  as  follows :  The  question  is  not,  Did  the  earliest  tra- 
dition know  of  appearances  in  Judea? — all  the  sources  agree  in  this — but, 
Did  Galilee  originally  come  into  consideration  in  this  part  of  the  history 
of  Jesus?  He  concludes  from  his  investigation  of  the  geographical  dispo- 
sition of  the  life  of  Jesus  in  the  Synoptic  Gospels  that  the  underlying 
document  (Grundschrift)  did  not  contain  the  Galilean  appearances, — which 
were  first  added  in  their  recension  of  this  document  by  Mark-Matthew. 

^  Berufsbewusstsein. 

"*  B.  Weiss,  Die  Evangelien  des  Markus  und  Lukas,"  1901,  MK.  i.  2, 
p.  245.  Zahn,  Gesch.  d.  mutest.  Kanons,  ii.  p.  930;  Einleitung,  ii.,  pp.  238  ff. ; 
Riggenbach,  Aus  Schrift  und  Geschichte,  p.  126;  so  also  Wellhausen,  Das 
Evangelium  Marci,  1903,  p.  146 — though  from  a  different  point  of  view 
and  for  a  different  reason;  cf.  H.  J.  Holtzmann,  HC.  i.^  1901,  p.  183;  O. 
Holtzmann,  Leben  Jesu,  1901,  p.  390;  R.  A.  Hoffmann,  Das  Marciisevan- 
gelium,  1904,  p.  641 ;  Wendling,  Die  Entstehung  des  Marcus-Evangeliunis, 
1908,  p.  201 — the  earliest  form  of  the  narrative  ends  with  i^iirvevcrfv  Mk.  xv. 
Z7 ;  cf.  the  text  in  his  Ur-Marcus.  1905,  p.  59;  Zimlmermann,  ThStKr. 
1901,  p.  148,  ends  his  AQ  source  with  Mk.  xvi.  8  and  thinks  that  the  refer- 
ence to  the  silence  of  the  women  not  only  indicates  the  absence  of  their  story 
from  earlier  tradition  but  explains  its  first  appearance  in  this  source  (cf. 
Bowen,  Resurrection  in  NT.  pp.  157  f.,  180  ff.).  J.  Weiss,  Das  iil teste  Evan- 
gelium, 1903,  pp.  340  ff.,  explains  the  silence  of  the  women  about  the  empty 
tomb  from  the  apologetic  reference  of  the  story  to  the  Jews  (p.  340)  and 


THE  RESURRECTION   APPEARANCES  339 

Riggenbach^-^  that  there  is  no  tradition  which  relates  exclu- 
sively Galilean  appearances  seems  to  be  true  of  the  later  as  of 
the  earlier  tradition. ^-^  The  Galilean  theory  rests  entirely,  in 
the  last  analysis,  on  an  inference,  for  the  sake  of  which  prac- 
tically all  the  documentai*y  evidence  is  traversed. 

There  is  indeed  some  difference  of  opinion  among  the  advo- 
cates of  the  double  tradition  about  the  duration  of  the  first  ap- 
pearances in  Jerusalem.  Zahn^-^  locates  the  appearance  de- 
scribed in  Jno.  XX.  26-29  in  Galilee  because  it  is  not  explicitly 
said  to  have  occurred  in  Jerusalem,  and  the  stay  of  the  dis- 
ciples in  Jerusalem  for  a  week  after  Easter  Sunday  is  thought 
improbable.  ^^"^  Appeal  is  made  also  to  the  patristic  association 
of  the  doubt  of  Thomas  with  Mt.  xxviii.  16  f.^^^  The  impli- 
cations of  the  context,  however,  strongly  favor  Jerusalem 
as  the  scene  of  Jno.  xx.  26-29.  Moreover  the  time  of  the 
departure  to  Galilee  is  not  fixed  by  the  Synoptic  tradition.  It 
may  not  be  possible  fully  to  explain  this  stay  in  Jerusalem. 
There  was  need  to  gather  the  scattered  disciples,  inform  them 
of  the  command  to  go  to  Galilee  and  of  the  appointed  meet- 
ing-place.    Their  hopes  for  the  restoration  of  the  kingdom 

holds  that  the  Gospel  may  have  ended  with  xvi.  8  (p.  345)  ;  SNT.  i.  p. 
227.  This  theory  of  an  anti-Jewish  apologetic  motive  dominating  the 
Gospel  of  Mark,  applied  by  Wrede  (Das  Messiasgeheiinnis,  1901)  to  a 
particular  feature  of  the  Marcan  narrative,  is  generalized  by  Baldensper- 
ger  in  relation  to  the  resurrection-narratives  in  Urchristliche  Apologie, 
die  dlteste  Auferstehungskontroverse,  1909.  Cf.  also  Louis  Coulange, 
RHLR.  1911,  pp.  145  ff.,  297  ff. ;  Bowen  Resurrection  in  NT.  p.  159  n.  4. 

^  Aus  Schrift  usw.  p.  142. 

'^  The  Gospel  of  Peter  may  constitute  an  exception,  if  not  in  fact,  at 
least  in  the  natural  inference  from  its  fragmentary  conclusion ;  yet  even 
this  Gospel  makes  of  Jesus'  enemies  witnesses  of  his  resurrection  in  Jeru- 
salem (cf.  Schubert  Pseudopetrin.  Evang.  p.  96 ;  W.  Bauer,  L^fc^M /^jm  usw. 
pp.  256  f). 

^^  Evang.  des  J  oh.  ZK.  iv.  1908,  p.  672. 

^^  Cf.  Mt.  xxvi.  32,  xxviii.  7,  16;  Mk.  xiv.  28,  xvi.  7. 

^^^  NkZ.  1903,  p.  806  n.  I,  citing  a  scholion  attributed  to  Origen  in 
Cramer,  Cat.  in  Ev.  Matt,  et  Marci,  p.  243,  and  Jerome.  The  addition 
however  of  etre  ^[Xiirwos  (cf.  also  Petrus  von  Laodicea,  ed.  Heinrici,  1908, 
PP-  343  O  and  the  differentiation  of  the  two  incidents  in  Chrysostom 
weaken  the  force  of  this  appeal. 


340 


THE   RESURRECTION   APPEARANCES 


to  Israel*^-  would  readily  center  in  Jerusalem,  and  the  com- 
mand to  go  to  Galilee — repeated  as  it  was — may  suggest 
that  this  was  not  the  natural  thing  for  them  to  do.  Doubt 
had  to  be  overcome, — in  particular  the  doubt  of  Thomas. 
The  Jerusalem  appearances  moreover  may  well  have  been 
intended  to  serve  particularly  in  confirming  the  disciples' 
faith  in  the  resurrection,  the  Galilean  to  give  fuller  instruction 
regarding  their  subsequent  mission.  The  doubt  of  some  in 
Mt.  xxviii.  17  scarcely  suggests  the  scene  of  Jno.  xx.  26ff. 
It  may  have  had  its  occasion  in  the  form  of  the  appearance,  or 
it  may  indicate  the  presence  of  others  beside  the  Eleven. ^^^ 

Voigt  transfers  the  ascension  from  the  Mount  of  Olives  to 
the  mount  in  Galilee,  north-west  of  Capernaum,. — the  scene 
of  the  beatitudes  and  of  the  calling  of  the  Twelve. ^^'^  Luke 
is  supposed  to  have  identified  the  mountain  of  his  Jerusalem 
source  with  the  Mount  of  Olives  and  to  have  interpreted  the 
separation  there  of  Jesus  from  his  disciples  as  final,  in  con- 
sequence of  which  the  command  to  remain  in  the  city  was  in- 
troduced. ^^^     The  appearance  to  Peter,  implied  in  Mark  and 

"*Acts  i.  6;  cf.  Lk.  xxiv.  21. 

^Cf.  Riggenbach,  Aus  Schrift  usw.  p.  150;  Voigt,  Die  aeltesten 
Berichte  uber  die  Auferstehung  Jesu  ChrisH,  1906,  pp.  63  f. ;  on  the  sum- 
mary character  of  the  description  cf.  C.  H.  Weisse,  Evang.  Gescli.  ii. 
pp.  415  ff. ;  Steinmeyer,  Apologetische  Beitr'dge,  iii.  1871,  p.  153,  and  J. 
Denney,  Jesus  and  the  Gospel,  1908,  pp.  155  fT. ;  Korff,  Auferstehung  usw. 
pp.  29  fif. ;  Plummer,  St.  Matthew,  p.  426. 

^^  Berichte  usw.  pp.  79  ff — although  rejecting  the  reference  of  ov  ird^aro 
aiiToh  6'l7)(Tovs  (Mt.  xxviii.  16)  to  the  mount  of  the  beatitudes;  cf.  Volkmar, 
Die  Evangelien  usw.  1870,  p.  609;  Westcott,  Introduction  to  the  Study  of 
the  Gospels,  i860  (1887),  p.  330;  B.  Weiss,  Das  Matthdus-Evangelium^ 
1898,  MK.  i.  I.  p.  506;  Bowen,  Resurrection  in  NT.  pp.  275  f.  The  iden- 
tification with  Thabor  is  combined  with  rejection  of  "  Galilee  on  the 
Mount  of  Olives  "  by  Ludolphus  de  Saxonia,  Vita  Christi,  ed.  Rigollot,  iv. 
1878,  p.  237,  par.  ii.  cap.  Ixxx,  i :  "  Et  sciendum,  quod  prope  montem 
Oliveti  ex  parte  boreali  ad  unum  milliare  est  mons,  qui  appellatur  Gali- 
Isea:  et  dicunt  quidam  quod  ille  est  mons  praedictus  ad  quem  discipuli 
undecim  abierunt,  non  quia  mons  sit  in  Galilaea,  cum  sit  in  Judaea, 
sed  quia  mons  iste  appellatur  Galilaea ;  alii,  quod  magis  videtur,  dicunt 
hoc  fuisse  in  monte  Thabor,  in  quo  Dominus  transfiguratus  fuit,  qui  vere 
in  Galilaea  consistit." 

^""Ibid.  pp.  102  ff. 


THE  RESURRECTION   APPEARANCES  341 

described  in  the  appendix  added  to  the  Fourth  Gospel  by  a 
disciple  of  John,  occurred  on  the  western  slope  of  the  Mount 
of  Olives. ^^*^  Emmaus  is  identified  with  Ensemes  between 
Bethany  and  Jericho.  Eight  days  after  the  appearances  on 
Easter  Sunday — to  Mary  Magdalene,  to  the  women,  to  Peter, 
to  Cleopas  and  his  companion,  and  to  the  disciples  in  Jerusalem, 
Thomas  being  absent — Jesus  appeared  again  to  the  disciples 
now  about  to  depart  to  Galilee,  Thomas  being  present ;  he  then 
led  them  out  to  the  Mount  of  Olives  where  he  was  separated 
from  them,  going  before  them,  though  now  unseen,  in  the 
way  to  Galilee.  On  this  journey  he  appeared  to  the  five  hun- 
dred ;  then  in  Galilee  to  the  seven  by  the  Sea,  and  finally  on  the 
mount  where  he  gave  commission  to  the  disciples  and  was  re- 
ceived up  into  heaven.  ^^''' 

The  plain  statements  of  the  Third  Gospel  and  of  Acts  op- 
pose this  construction,  and  the  transposition  of  the  restoration, 
of  Peter  from  the  place  assigned  to  it  in  Jno.  xxi  depends 
wholly  on  an  individual  sense  of  fitness.  The  view  of  Rig- 
genbach^^^  is  simpler  and  in  closer  accord  with  the  evidence. 
The  Jerusalem  appearances,  including  an  appearance  to  Peter 
and  the  appearance  to  the  disciples  after  eight  days, — Thomas 
being  present — were  followed  by  Galilean  appearances,  the  ap- 
pearance to  the  seven  by  the  Sea  including  the  restoration  of 
Peter,  and  the  appearance  on  the  mountain — identified  prob- 
ably with  the  appearance  to  the  five  hundred — and  finally  in 
Jerusalem  again,  the  appearance  to  James,  and  the  farewell 
appearance  terminated  by  the  ascension  from  the  Mount  of 
Olives  toward  Bethany. ^^^ 

^ Ibid.  pp.  74  ff.  "'  Cf.  ibid.  pp.  Ill  ff. 

^^' Aus  Schrift  und  Geschichte,  pp.  151  ff. 

"'On  the  double  tradition  cf.  Romberg,  NkZ.  1901,  pp.  315  ff. ;  B.  Weiss, 
Lehen  Jesu*  ii.  1902,  pp.  507  ff. ;  Beyschlag,  ThStKr.  1899,  pp.  507  ff. ;  Leben 
Jesu*  i.  1902,  pp.  433  ff. ;  Horn,  NkZ.  1902,  pp.  349  ff. ;  Abfassungzeit, 
Geschichtlichkeit  und  Zweck  von  Evang.  J  oh.  Kap.  21,  1904,  pp.  94  ff. ;  Rei- 
ser, Geschichte  d.  Leidens  u.  Sterbens,  d.  Auferstehung  u.  Himmelfahrt  d. 
Herrn,  1903,  pp.  454  ff. ;  Wabnitz,  Hist,  de  la  Vie  de  Jesus,  1904,  pp.  408  ff. ; 
Sanday,  Outlines  of  the  Life  of  Christ,  1905,  pp.  170  ff. ;  D.  Smith,  The 
Days  of  His  Flesh,  1905,  pp.  508  ff. ;  an  article  in  ChQuRev.  Oct.  1905- 
Jan.  1906,  pp.  323-355,  especially  pp.  347  ff. ;  Swete,  The  Appearances  of  our 
Lord,  etc.,  1907;  Westcott,  The  Gospel  according  to  St.  John,  1908,  ii.  pp. 


342 


THE   RESURRECTION    APPEARANCES 


It  may  be  difficult  to  solve  in  detail  all  the  problems  which 
arise  on  this  general  view  of  the  relation  of  the  narratives; 
but  this  should  not  affect  our  confidence  in  its  validity.  There 
will  of  necessity  enter  into  every  reconstruction  of  the  course 
of  events  a  subjective  element  which  will  preclude  the  attain- 
ment of  more  than  a  certain  degree  of  probability.  Paul's 
account  is  favorable  to  the  tradition  which  locates  the  first  ap- 
pearances— including  the  appearance  to  Peter — in  Jerusalem 
and  on  Easter  Sunday;  but  the  identification  of  the  appear- 
ances which  he  mentions  with  particular  appearances  described 
in  the  Gospels  is  less  certain.  Judging  from  the  order  in  which 
the  appearance  to  James  occurs  in  his  list/^*^  the  place  assigned 
to  it  in  the  Gospel  according  to  the  Hebrews  cannot  be  his- 
torical.^"*^ The  fact  however  underlies  and  explains  the  po- 
sition of  James  and  the  other  brethren  of  the  Lord  in  the  early 
Church.  ^^^  It  is  perhaps  more  natural  therefore,  as  the  Jeru- 
salem setting  seems  to  be  excluded,  to  locate  this  appearance  in 
Galilee. 

As  Paul  is  silent  about  the  appearances  to  the  women, 
knowledge  of  them  must  be  derived  from  the  Gospels.  The 
presence  of  women  at  the  sepulchre  on  Easter  morning  is 
witnessed  by  all  the  Gospels, ^^^  and  appearances  of  Jesus  to 
them  by  two,' — an  appearance  to  Mary  Magdalene  at  the 
sepulchre  by  John,^"*^  and  an  appearance  to  certain  women  on 
their  way  from  the  sepulchre  by  Matthew.  ^^^  As  John's  nar- 
rative is  the  more  graphic  and  the  Fourth  Gospel  elsewhere 
presupposes  knowledge  of  the  Synoptic  tradition,  the  appear- 
ance to  Mary  Magdalene  is  probably  to  be  separated  from  the 
appearance  to  the  women,  Mary  having  left  the  others  when 
she  went  to  bring  Peter  and  John  word  of  the  empty  tomb. 

333  f ;  J-  Orr,  The  Resurrection  of  Jesus,  1909,  pp.  149  ff;  E.  Mangenot, 
La  Resurrection  de  Jesus,  1910,  pp.  240  ff. ;  W.  J.  Sparrow  Simpson,  DCG. 
ii.  p.  508;  The  Resurrection  and  Modern  Thought,  1911,  pp.  70  ff. 

^^^  K7;0^,  Totj  SwSeKtt,  iir&vu  vevraKoaioL^  d.5e\((>oh,  laKd)p(fi. 

"*  Cf.  Appendix,  p.  351,  I. 

'"Gal.  i.  19,  ii.  9,  12;  i  Cor.  ix.  5;  Acts  i.  14,  xii.  17,  xv.  13,  xxi.  18;  cf. 
Jno.  vii.  3,  5. 

"*Mt.  xxviii.  I  ff;  Mk.  xvi.  i  ff;  Lk.  xxiii.  55  f,  xxiv.  i  ff,  10  f,  22; 
Jno.  XX.  I  ff. 

***Jno.  XX.  I  ff.  ^"Mt.   xxviii.  9-10. 


THE   RESURRECTION   APPEARANCES  343 

Upon  her  return  and  after  the  departure  of  Peter  and  John, 
Jesus  appeared  to  her.  The  appearance  to  the  other  women^*® 
followed  as  they  went  to  tell  to  the  disciples  the  message  of 
the  angel.  The  silence  of  the  women  as  they  left  the  sepul- 
chre^^" cannot  have  continued  indefinitely;  for  Mark  shows 
knowledge  of  their  experience  and  Matthew  and  Luke  alike 
imply  the  breaking  of  what  must  have  been  a  temporary  state 
induced  by  fear.^"*^  The  mingling  of  fear  and  joy^'*^  in  their 
experience  is  not  incongruous,  nor  does  the  appearance  of 
Jesus  to  the  women  render  an  appearance  to  Peter  superfluous. 
This  may  well  have  served  the  purpose  of  reestablishing  Peter's 
faith  and  of  fitting  him  to  become  a  center  of  influence  in 
gathering  the  scattered  disciples  and,  eventually,  their  leader 
on  the  journey  back  to  Galilee :  for  the  Gospels  imply  the 
presence  of  the  disciples  in  Jerusalem  on  Easter  Sunday^^**  and 
their  scattering  at  Gethsemane^^^  cannot  have  been  a  "  flight 
to  Galilee  ". 

There  is  no  intimation  in  Luke  that  Cleopas  and  his  com- 
panion were  on  their  way  to  Galilee;  and  the  isolated  allu- 
sion to  Emmaus  is  plainly  indicative  of  authentic  reminis- 
cence. ^^^ 

*"Mk.  xvi.  I  Mary  Magdalene,  Mary  [the  mother]  of  James,  and 
Salome ;  Lk.  xxiv.  10  Mary  Magdalene,  Joanna,  Mary  [the  mother]  of 
James,  and  the  others  with  them. 

'"  Mk.  xvi.  8. 

"*  Mt.  xxviii.  8  ff ;  Lk.  xxiv.  9,  22  f. 

"'  Mt.  xxviii.  8 ;  cf.  the  description  of  the  mental  state  of  the  disciples 
in  Lk.  xxiv.  27  ^nd  41  ■  TTOTj^^rres  5^  Kal  eficpo^oi  yevd/xevoi  .  .  .  en  5^  dTTurTovyruv 
avTwv  dirb  ttjs  xa/'Ss  Kal  davyxi'^bvTuiv  ktK. 

^"*'  After  the  scattering  at  Gethsemane  the  presence  of  the  disciples  in  or 
near  Jerusalem  is  implied  in  Mt.  xxviii.  7  f .,  10  f . ;  Mk.  xvi.  7 ;  Lk.  xxiii. 
49  (01  yvwarol  ovrv);  xxiv.  9  f.,  24,  22>  ff-  '■>  Jno.  XX.  18,  19  ff. ;  the  presence  of 
Peter  in  Mt.  xxvi.  57  ff. ;  Mk.  xiv.  53  ff. ;  Lk.  xxii.  54  ff. ;  xxiv.  [12],  34; 
Jno.  xviii.  15  ff.,  25  ff.,  xx.  3  ff. ;  of  John  in  Jno.  xviii.  15  f.,  xix.  26  f, 
XX.  3  ff. 

"'The  scattering  of  the  disciples  is  witnessed  by  Mt.  xxvi.  56;  Mk.  xiv. 
50,  and  was  predicted  in  Mt.  xxvi.  31;  Mk.  xiv.  27;  Jno.  xvi.  32;  cf. 
Justin,  Apol.  i.  50;  Dial.  53;  106;  see  above  note  38. 

'"  On  the  location  cf .  Schiirer,  Gesch.  d.  jild.  Volkes  usw.  i.  pp.  640  ff. ;  on 
the  similarity  of  the  narrative  with  Acts  viii.  26-40  and  possible  deriva- 
tion from  the  family  of  Philip  cf.  M.  Dibelius,  ZNW.  191 1,  p.  329. 


344       THE  RESURRECTION  APPEARANCES 

An  appearance  to  the  disciples  in  Jerusalem^'' ^  seems  to  be 
implied  in  Matthew.  ^^^  Luke  describes  an  appearance  to  the 
disciples  and  others  as  occurring  late  on  the  evening  of  Easter 
Sunday,  after  the  return  of  Cleopas  and  his  companion.  This 
is  probably  identical  with  the  appearance  to  the  Twelve,  which 
follows  the  appearance  to  Peter  in  Paul's  list,  and  with  the  ap- 
pearance to  the  disciples  when  Thomas  was  absent,  which  is 
recorded  by  John.^^^ 

The  hesitation  or  doubt  of  some  when  they  heard  the  story 
of  the  women^^*^  and  witnessed  or  learned  of  an  appearance^^'^ 
shows  a  desire  for  tangible,  sensible  evidence  which  was  not 
unnatural  under  the  circumstances  and  is  not  an  indication  of 
a  late  stage  in  the  development  of  Gospel  tradition.  Its  exag- 
geration in  later  narratives^^^  may  have  had  an  apologetic  or 
an  antidocetic  motive,  but  there  is  no  reason  to  question  its  ex- 
istence. Its  duration  in  individuals  can  be  fixed  if  definitely 
indicated,^^®  but  its  presence  is  not  in  itself  proof  of  an  initial 
experience.  Those  who  doubted  on  the  mountain  in  Galilee 
may  have  been  among  the  disciples  to  whom  Jesus  had  already 
appeared;  but  it  is  quite  possible  that  Matthew  in  following  a 
source^^^  has  mentioned  the  Eleven  specifically  as  present  for 
the  purpose  of  reporting  the  carrying  out  of  Jesus'  direction 
and  the  fulfilment  of  his  promise,  without  noting  the  presence 
of  others.  Certainly  the  whole  incident  cannot  be  assigned  to 
an  earlier  period  on  the  ground  of  Matthew's  unwillingness 
to  record  the  doubts  of  the  disciples. ^^^ 

'»*  Lk.  xxiv.  36  ff. 

"*  Mt.  xxviii.  16  (oD  ird^aro  aiiroti)  . 

"'  I  Cor.  XV.  5 ;  Jno.  xx.  19  ff. 

***Lk.  xxiv.  II. 

""Mt.  xxviii.  17;  Lk.  xxiv.  37;  Jno.  xx.  24  ff. 

"'  [Mk.]  xvi.  II,  14  ff,  the  addition  in  the  Freer  Ms. — cf.  Gregory,  Das 
Freer  Logion,  1908 — and  the  Coptic  Document;  cf.  Appendix,  p.  352,  III. 

""Jno.  XX.  26  ff. 

"*  In  xxviii.  17  oi  5i  is  introduced  abruptly  and  the  o5  ird^aro  airroh  is  not 
adequately  grounded  in  the  preceding  context.  Likewise  in  verse  9  the 
antecedent  of  aiJrots  is  Mapia/*^  Ma75oXT;i'rj»coi^  AXXtj  Map/a( verse  i),  although 
it  seems  probable  that  Mary  Magdalene  was  not  actually  present  on  this 
occasion. 

"^  Cf.  above  p.  336. 


THE  RESURRECTION   APPEARANCES  345 

Jesus'  promise  before  his  death,  repeated  in  the  message  of 
the  angel  and  of  Jesus  to  the  women,  that  he  would  "  go  be- 
fore his  disciples  into  Galilee  "  seems  to  imply  personal  leader- 
ship rather  than  temporal  precedence  or  prior  arrival. ^^^  The 
changed  form  of  the  message  in  Luke,^®^  even  if  it  be  based 
on  Mark,  is  intended  to  introduce  another  feature,  to  doubt 
the  authenticity  of  which  there  is  no  other  ground  than  the 
suspicion  that  Luke  begins  at  this  point  an  unhistorical  elimi- 
nation of  the  Galilean  appearances.  But  this  elimination  is 
unhistorical  in  Luke,  as  the  elimination  of  the  Jerusalem  ap- 
pearance to  the  disciples  is  unhistorical  in  Matthew,  only  when 
the  narratives  are  held  to  be  exclusive  of  facts  which  they  do 
not  record.  Luke's  narrative  is  plainly  determined  by  interest 
in  the  Jerusalem  appearances.  It  is  greatly  condensed. 
Whether  or  not  it  be  possible  to  show  that  Luke's  source  con- 
tained an  account  of  Galilean  appearances,  some  break  in  the 
temporal  order^^*  is  demanded  in  the  interest  of  a  rational  in- 
terpretation of  the  closing  scene.  Luke  cannot  have  meant^^^ 
or  intended  his  readers  to  think  of  Jesus'  final  separation  from 
the  disciples  as  occurring  late  at  night.  And  if  such  a  break 
be  admitted,  the  words  of  Jesus  bidding  the  disciples  "  tarry 

"*  Mt.  xxvi.  32 ;  Mk.  xiv.  28  :  irpod^oj  vnds  els  Tr]v  TaXiXaiav;  cf.  Mt.  xxviii. 
7;  Mk.  xvi.  7  (irpodyei).  This  interpretation  is  commended  both  by  the 
context  of  the  original  promise  and  by  the  usage  in  Mk.  x.  32 :  ^cav  de  iv  t^ 
oSf?  dvapalvovres  els  'lepoffdXv/xa,  Kal  Tiv  irpodywv  airroiis  6  'Itjctouj  ktX  _  Cf.  also  Mt. 
ii.  9,  xxi.  9;  Mk.  xi.  9;  Lk.  xviii.  39;  Acts  xii.  6,  xvi.  30;  but  on  the  other 
hand,  Mt.  xiv.  22;  Mk.  vi.  45;  Mt.  xxi.  31. 

"^  xxiv.  6 :  fiv-qffdrjre  wj  iXdXricrev  v/uv  en  wv  iv  ry  ToKiXalq.  Xdywv  rbv  vl6v  toO 
dvOpQwov  6ti  Set  Trapadodijvai  ktX. 

*"  Either  after  verse  43, 45,  or  48 ;  cf.  Plummer,  St.  Luke,  ICC.  pp.  561,  564. 

"'  This  follows  not  only  from  a  careful  examination  of  Lk.  xxiv  but 
from  the  definite  statement  in  Acts  i.  3  that  the  appearances  continued 
during  forty  days.  To  those  who  admit  the  Lukan  authorship  of  the 
Third  Gospel  and  Acts  this  should  be  conclusive,  even  if  the  consequences 
do  not  contribute  to  the  stability  of  the  Galilean  theory  of  the  appearances. 
Harnack  however  having  characteristized  the  "  forty  days "  as  a  myth 
(Apostelgeschichte,  1908,  p.  129)  is  disposed  to  admit  its  early  origin 
[uralt]  only  as  a  messianic-apocalyptic  theologoumenon  (Neue  Unter- 
suchungen  sur  Apostelgeschichte,  191 1,  pp.  113  f).  For  a  different  view  of 
the  "  forty  days  " — by  which  the  appearance  to  Peter  is  dated — cf.  B.  W. 
Bacon,  AJTh.  191 1,  p.  402. 


346       THE  RESURRECTION  APPEARANCES 

in  the  city  "  ^""^  will  not  exclude  the  appearances  in  Galilee 
which  are  implied  in  Mark  and  recorded  in  Matthew  and  John. 

Following  the  appearance  on  the  eighth  day  after  Easter/^'^ 
the  disciples  went  to  Galilee.  The  appearance  to  the  seven  by 
the  Sea  probably  preceded  the  appearance  on  the  mountain. ^^^ 
The  fishing  scene  may  imply  in  the  Gospel  of  Peter  the  taking 
up  again  of  an  old  occupation  in  the  desix)ndency  and  despair 
which  followed  the  dissipation  of  cherished  hopes  ;^"'^  but  such 
an  interpretation  of  it  is  excluded  in  John.  The  disciples  are 
in  Galilee  at  Jesus'  command — as  John  and  his  readers  would 
know  from  Matthew^'*' — and  they  could  not  have  been  in  de- 
spair of  Jesus'  cause  in  the  thought  either  of  the  author  or  of 
the  reader  of  Jno.  xx.  The  commission  of  Peter  which  is  con- 
nected with  this  incident,  like  the  commission  of  the  disci- 
ples,^"^ is  not  necessarily  connected  either  logically  or  tem- 
porally with  the  first  experience  of  an  appearance  of  Jesus. 
The  author  of  Jno.  xxi  not  only  felt  no  incongruity  in  the 
order  but  specifically  calls  this  the  third  time  that  Jesus  ap- 
peared to  his  disciples.  To  insist  that  it  must  have  been  the 
first  because  the  author  calls  it  the  third  is  arbitrary  ;^'^-  and 
there  is  no  adequate  literary  justification  for  the  separation  of 
the  two  incidents  of  this  scene. 

The  identification  of  the  appearance  to  the  five  hundred 
with  the  appearance  to  the  Eleven  on  the  mountain  in  Galilee 
and  of  that  to  all  the  disciples — in  Paul's  list — with  the  final 
appearance  in  Jerusalem  at  the  time  of  the  ascension  from  the 
Mount  of  Olives  toward  Bethany  is  both  natural  and  highly 
probable. 

Of  the  three  views  concerning  the  place  of  the  appearances 
the  Jerusalem  theory  has  least  to  commend  it  and  the  evidence 

^"xxiv.  49;  cf.  Acts  i.  4. 
*"  Jno.  XX.  26  ff. 

Cf.   Jno.   xxi.    14:    rovTO  i^drj  Tplrov   icpavepdidr)  'iriffoui  toTs  fiadriTah  iyepdels  iK 
v€Kp(ov. 

""•  Cf.  above  p.  ^2,2,- 

"*  On   the   relation   of  the  Fourth   Gospel   to  the   Synoptic   Gospels  cf. 
Zahn,  Einleitung.  ii.  pp.  507  ff.. 
"*Mt.  xxviii.   18  ff. 
"'Cf.  Lyder  Brun,  ThStKr.  1911,  p.  167. 


THE   RESURRECTION    APPEARANCES  347 

against  it  is  clear  and  convincing.  For  this  and  other  reasons 
the  GaHlean  theory  is  generally  considered  the  critical  alter- 
native to  the  double  tradition.  It  is  however  closely  associated 
with  the  "  flight  to  Galilee  "  theory ;  and  this  is  contrary  to  the 
historical  evidence.  Even  the  Gospel  of  Peter  represents  the 
disciples  as  present  in  Jerusalem  until  the  end  of  the  feast,  and 
certainly  therefore  until  the  third  day,  if  not  longer.  This 
being  true,  it  is  impossible  to  hold  against  all  the  evidence  ex- 
cept the  Gospel  of  Peter  that  the  journey  to  Galilee  was  made 
in  ignorance  of  the  empty  tomb  and  the  message  of  the  angel. 
The  transfer  to  Galilee  of  the  appearance  to  Peter — recorded 
by  Luke  in  a  Jerusalem  setting — is  arbitrary  and  made  in  the 
interest  of  the  general  theory.  This  theory  moreover  is  not 
adequately  supported  by  inference  from  Mark,  by  the  hypothet- 
ical contents  of  the  lost  ending  of  Mark,  by  the  Gospel  of 
Peter,  and  by  a  critical  transformation  of  Jno.  xxi.  Its  treat- 
ment of  the  Gospels  as  literary  embodiments  of  a  twofold, 
but  mutually  exclusive  tradition,  is  supported  indeed  by  the 
affirmation  of  axiomatic  validity  for  its  own  historical  premise, 
but  this  only  discloses  the  intrusion  of  an  unsound  skepticism 
between  the  interpreter  and  his  sources, ^'''^  the  deepest  roots  of 
which  are  not  historical  but  philosophical.  The  close  associa- 
tion of  this  theory  with  the  interpretation  of  the  appearances 
as  visionary  experiences — whether  objectively  or  subjectively 
occasioned — is  of  course  not  accidental. ^'^*  Its  bearing  on  the 
resurrection  itself  and  the  transformation  of  Christianity, 
which  the  elimination  of  this  element  from  its  historic  faith 
involves,  are  not  concealed. 

The  theory  that  maintains  the  validity  of  the  double  tradi- 
tion offers  an  explanation  of  the  documentary  evidence  by  at- 

"*  Cf .  J.  Weiss,  Jesus  von  Nazareth,  Mythus  oder  Geschichte,  1910,  pp. 
84  f.  This  attitude  toward  the  sources  is  not  confined  to  the  radical  type 
of  criticism ;  and  Weiss'  statement  is  made  in  a  form  broadly  applicable 
to  contemporary  historical  method ;  cf.  also  p.  93. 

"*  Kreyenbiihl's  repudiation  and  criticism  of  the  vision  hypothesis  is 
interesting  but  not  significant,  for  his  own  theory  of  the  psychological 
genesis  of  the  resurrection  faith  in  the  triumph  of  the  messianic-apocalyp- 
tic idea  over  popular  ghost-fear  is  equally  naturalistic  and  opposed  to  the 
plain  implications  of  the  historical  sources  {ZNW.  1908,  pp.  273  ff)  ;  cf. 
J.  A.  Cramer,  ThT.  1910,  p.  213. 


348  THE  RESURRECTION   APPEARANCES 

tempting  an  interpretation  of  it  in  accordance  with  the  prem 
ises  of  the  documents.  Both  Paul  and  the  primitive  Christian 
community  beHeved  that  Jesus  rose  from  the  dead  and  that  he 
appeared  to  certain  persons.  The  records  of  fact  underlying 
this  belief  are  consistent  in  regard  to  its  essential  features, 
though  no  one  of  them  attempts  to  set  forth  the  different  ele- 
ments in  their  various  relations.  Concrete  events  have  in- 
fluenced the  narratives,  but  here  as  elsewhere  the  Gospels  are 
not  dominated  by  the  modern  interest  in  exact  sequence  in  time 
or  minute  local  description.  They  record  enough  to  make 
their  witness  quite  plain  in  its  broad  aspects  and  not  intract- 
able to  a  constructive  treatment  which  shares  their  premises. 
But  when  these  premises  are  rejected,  the  effort  to  discover  a 
different  factual  basis  for  the  belief  which  the  documents  re- 
flect necessarily  results  in  a  treatment  of  the  sources,  the  vio- 
lence of  which  is  less  apparent  but  not  justified  because  it 
forms  part  of  a  particular  theory  of  the  character  and  develop- 
ment of  early  Christianity. ^''^^ 

The  method  which  treats  the  Gospel  narratives  as  supple- 
mentary^'''^— the  so-called  "  method  of  addition  "■ — yields  a  re- 
sult that  fairly  interprets  and  is  supported  by  the  objective 
evidence  of  the  documents.  With  the  increasing  recognition 
of  the  evidence  for  the  early  date  of  the  Synoptic  Gospels, 
their  sources, — of  whatever  kind  and  constitution — being  still 
earlier, — carry  back  the  witness  of  the  documents  to  the  time  of 
the  eye-witnesses.  And  among  these  there  was  no  difference 
of  opinion  concerning  the  factual  basis  which  underlies  the 
tradition  recorded  by  the  Gospels  in  concrete  and  varying 
forms.  To  admit  with  Harnack  that  the  Gospel  of  Luke  was 
written  before  70  A.D.  and  early  in  the  sixties, ^'^'^  is  to  accept 
a  fact  which  has  an  important  bearing  on  the  origin  of  the 
sources  of  the  Synoptic  Gospels, — a  fact  which  makes  it  diffi- 
cult, as  Harnack  himself  foresaw, ^'^^  to  regard  as  legendary 
their  accounts  of  supernatural  events.     For  if  the  Gospels  em- 

'"Cf.  B.  B.  Warfield,  AJTh.  191 1,  pp.  337  ff.,  546  ff.,  and  J.  A.  Cramer, 
ThT.  1910,  pp.  217  flF. 
"*Barth,  Hatiptprobleme  d.   Lebens  Jesu'   1903,  p.  218. 
"''  Neue  Untersuchungen  sur  Apostelgeschichte,  pp.  81  ff. 
"'Die  Apostelgeschichte,  p.  221,  n.  2, 


THE   RESURRECTION   APPEARANCES  349 

body  the  view  of  Jesus  which  was  current  in  the  primitive 
Christian  community  about  60  A.D. — as  Heitmiiller  admits^ ^^ 
— or  earHer — as  Harnack's  dating  of  Luke  requires — the  re- 
jection of  their  witness  cannot  be  based  upon  their  differences 
or  upon  purely  historical  considerations.  Recourse  must  be 
had  to  a  principle  springing  ultimately  out  of  philosophical 
conceptions  by  which  their  unanimous  witness  to  essential  fea- 
tures in  their  portraiture  of  Jesus  may  be  set  aside.^^®  It  is  not 
strange  therefore  that  this  type  of  Gospel  criticism  finds  itself 
confronted  by  a  still  more  radical  type^^^  against  which  it  can 
with  difficulty  defend  the  historical  minimum  permitted  by  its 
premises.^*-  And  this  only  raises  more  acutely  the  issue  con- 
cerning the  validity  of  the  premises  upon  which  an  attitude 

^™  Cf.   the  following  note. 

^™  Cf.  the  principle  formulated  and  applied  to  the  Gospels  by  Schmiedel 
in  EB.  ii.  col.  1839-1896,  and  more  recently  by  Heitmiiller  in  DGG.  iii. 
1911,  pp.  359-362.  After  pointing  out  that  the  earliest  sources  of  the  Synop- 
tic Gospels  do  not  go  back  of  but  reflect  merely  the  view  of  Jesus  which 
was  current  in  the  Palestinian  community  from  50-70  and  formulating  as 
the  canon  of  historical  trustworthiness  the  generally  accepted  [allgemein 
anerkannten]  principle  of  contradiction — that  those  elements  of  Gospel 
tradition  may  be  accepted  as  surely  trustworthy  which  are  not  in  accord 
with  the  faith  of  the  community  to  which  the  general  representation  be- 
longs— Heitmiiller  says  (p.  361)  :  Our  scrupulousness  [Skrupulositat,  or 
Bedenken  (p.  377),  or  Vorsicht  (p.  396)]  "must  be  especially  active 
against  all  the  things  that  were  especially  dear  to  the  early  Christians ;  to 
which  belong  the  faith  in  Jesus'  Messiahship,  his  near  return,  the  whole 
subject  of  so-called  eschatology  (kingdom  of  God),  the  passion  and  resur- 
rection, and  the  miraculous  power  of  Jesus ;  where  the  heart  and  the  theol- 
ogy or  the  apologetic  of  the  early  Christians  were  especially  interested, 
an  influence  on  historical  tradition  or  construction  must  be  feared  " ;  cf . 
also  an  exposition  of  the  "  aetiological "  principle  or  the  "  method  of 
pragmatic  values  "  by  B.  W.  Bacon,  HThR.  1908,  pp.  48  ff. — privately  en- 
dorsed by  Harnack,  cf.  AJTh.  191 1,  p.  374,  n.  4 — and  JBL.  1910,  i.  pp. 
41  ff;  and  the  theory  of  the  "  messianisation  "  of  the  earthly  life  of  Jesus 
in  Bowen,  Resurrection  in  NT.  pp.  402  ff.,  421  flF.,  439.  On  the  other  hand 
cf.  the  acute  criticism  of  the  literary  and  historical  methods  which  char- 
acterize this  point  of  view  by  Franz  Dibelius,  Das  Abendm<ihl,  191 1,  pp.  i  ff. 

^"  Kalthoff,  J.  M.  Robertson,  W.  B.  Smith,  Jensen,  A.  Drews,  etc. 

^'^  Cf .  Bousset,  Was  wissen  wir  von  Jesus,  1904;  ThR.  191 1,  pp.  373  ff. ; 
J.  Weiss,  Jesus  von  Nazareth,  My  thus  oder  Geschichte,  1910;  a  review  of 
Weiss  by  B.  B.  Warfield  in  PrThR.  1911,  pp.  332  ff. ;  M.  Dibelius  in  ThLs. 
1910,  pp.  545  ff. ;  Windisch  in  ThR.  1910,  p.  163  ff.,  199  ff. ;  1911,  pp.  114  ff. 


350  THE   RESURRECTION   APPEARANCES 

of  distrust  toward  the  early  Christian  view  of  Jesns  as  re- 
corded in  the  Gospels  and  embodied  in  the  earliest  sources 
which  they  incorporate  is  maintained.  But  if  the  early  Chris- 
tian view  of  Jesus  be  true  in  its  essential  features — and  it  is 
attested  by  all  the  historical  evidence — it  may  confidently  be 
exi>ected  that  the  totality  of  the  Gospel  witness  in  its  concrete 
details  will  come  into  its  rights,  which  are  the  rights — as  its 
witness  is  true — of  Jesus,  the  Christ,  who  by  his  resurrection 
and  appearances  became  the  author  of  Christian  faith  at  the 
inception  of  the  Church's  life,  and  who  is  still  the  ever  living 
source  of  faith,  the  Lord  of  life  and  glory. 

199  ff. ;  A.  Drews,  Die  Christusmythe,  ii.  191 1 — Ein  Antwort  an  die  Schrift- 
gelehrten  usw. ;  Holtzmann,  PrM.  1900,  pp.  463  fif. ;  1907,  pp.  313  ff, ;  ChrW. 
1910,  pp.  151  ff. ;  Case,  AJTh.  1911,  PP-  20  ff.,  205  ff.,  265  ff. ;  The  Histori- 
city of  Jesus,  1912. 


THE   RESURRECTION   APPEARANCES  351 


APPENDIX. 

I.  Gospel  according  to  the  Hebrews  :  Hieronymus,  Liber  de  viris 
INLUSTRIBUS,  Gebhardt  u.  Harnack,  TU.  xiv.  1896,  p.  8. 

'  Dominus  autem  cum  dedisset  sindonem  servo  sacerdotis,  ivit  ad 
lacobum  et  apparuit  ei ',  (iuraverat  enim  Jacobus  se  non  comesurum  panem 
ab  ilia  hora  qlia  biberat  calicem  Domini,  donee  videret  euni  resurgentem  a 
dormientibus)  rursusque  post  paululum,  '  Adferte,  ait  Dominus,  mensam  et 
panem',  statimque  additur:  '  Tulit  panem  et  benedixit  et  f regit  et  dedit 
lacobo  lusto  et  dixit  ei :  '  Prater  mi,  comede  panem  tuum,  •  quia  resur- 
rexit  Filius  hominis  a  dormientibus '. 

Cf.  I  Cor.  XV.  7.  The  secondary  character  of  this  narrative  is  plain 
even  if  "  dominus "  be  read  with  the  Greek  translation  ( 6  K^pios)  for 
"  domini "  in  the  clause  "  qua  biberat  calicem  " ;  cf.  Lightf oot,  St.  Paul's 
Epistle  to  the  Galatians,  1892,  p.  274;  Harnack,  Gesch.  d.  altchr.  Lit.  bis 
Euseb.  i.  i,  p.  8;  ii.  i,  p.  650  n.  i ;  Resch,  Agrapha^  Gebhardt  u.  Harnack, 
TU.  NF.  XV.  3-4,  1906,  pp.  248  ff;  Handmann,  Das  Hebrder-Evangeliimi, 
1888,  pp.  77  ff. ;  Schmidtke,  Neue  Fragmente  u.  Untersuchungen  z.  d. 
judenchr.  Evangelien,  Harnack  u.  Schmidt,  TU.  3.  Reihe,  vii.  i,  1911,  p. 
27 ;  on  the  other  hand  cf.  Zahn,  Gesch.  d.  nt.  Kanons,  ii.  pp.  700  ff. ;  For- 
schungen,  vi.  1900,  p.  277;  W.  Bauer,  Leben  Jesu  usw.  p.  164;  Bowen, 
Resurrection  in  NT.  p.  424  n.  2. 

II.  Gospel  of  Peter;  Klostermann,  Apocrypha,^  Lietzmann,  KIT.  3, 
1908,  pp.  7  f. 

xii  50  'Opdpov  5e  rijs  KvpiaKrjs  Mapiap,  17  Ma75aX77j'T^,  /xadi^Tpia  toO  Kvpiov  ([^] 
tpo^ovp-ivT]  8ia  Toiis  'lovbalovs,  iireidr)  iipXiyovTO  virb  rrjs  dpyijs,  ovk  iTToirjaev  ^irl  T(p 
/jLVTifjuiTi  Tov  Kvpiov  &  eludeffav  iroieiv  at  yvvaiKes  ^irl  tois  aTrodvrjffKovai  rots  Kal  ayairiapAv- 
oiJ  avTois)  ^'  XajSovaa  p^d'  eaur^s  rdj  0/Xas  r)\6ev  iirl  t6  p.vr}fieiov  Sirov  Tjv  redels.  ^'^  koX 
i(f>o^ovvTO  p.7]  idutriv  airrai  ol  lovdaioi  Kal  eXeyov  "  et  Kal  /jlt]  iv  iKeivj]  ry  i]p.ipq,  rf 
iffTavpdjdri  i8vvridr)fiev  KXavcrai  Kal  Kbxpaadai^  kSlv  vOv  iirl  rod  p.vrip.aTOs  avTov  Troiri<TU)p.€v 
ravra.  ^*  ris  dk  aTroKuX/tret  i]p.iv  Kal  rbv  \ldov  rbv  Tedivra  iwl  Tr}s  dvpas  tov  p,v7]p.elov, 
'iva  daeKdomai  irapaKadecrdCjpjev  aiiTif  Kal  Tronficrwp.ei'  ra  6(pei\6peva  ;  ^*  p.iyas  yap  ^v  6 
\ldos,  Kal  <f)0^ovpjeda  fxri  rts  -qp-as  idTj.  Kal  ei  p,rt  dvvdpeda,  kSlv  iirl  rris  dvpas  ^dXop^v  d 
(pepop^v  eis  p.vTipx)(Tvvr]v avToO,\^Kai]  KXavffiopev  Kal  KOi^Jip^da  ^cjs  iXOwpjev  eis  rbv  oIkov  yjp.Cbv.'''' 
xiii  55  Kal  iireXdowai  evpov  rbv  rdcpov  -ffvei^yp-evov  Kal  TrpoffeXdovaai  irapiKvipav  iKei, 
Kal  bpGxxiv  iKei  riva  veavLffKov  KaOe^bpevov  [iv]  pAat^  tov  rdcpov  wpacov  /cat  Trept/Se^Xij- 
p^vov  CTToXrjv  XapirpoTdrriv,  6<ttis  €<pr)  ai>7-ars'  ^  "  tI  ifXdare  ;  rlva  ^TjTeiTe  ;  p.7}  rbv 
(TTavpudivTa  iKitvov  ;  dvi(TT-q  Kol  dirriXdev  el  bk  p.r]  iruTTeiere^  7rapaKi!npaTe  Kal  tdere  rbv 
T&Kov  evda  eKeiTO,  on  ovk  eaTiv  dviart)  yap  Kal  aTTTJXdev  iKfi  6dev  aTreffrdXt].''''  ^'  T&re 
al  yvvalKes  (Po^rjdeia-ai  ecpvyov. 

xiv  58  'Uv  oi  TeXevrala  rjp^pa  tQjv  d^vp.oji',  Kal  TroXXoi  Tives  i^ripxovTo  VTro<TTpi<povTes 
eh  Toiis  oiKovs  avrCjv  t^s  eoprrjs  iravaapivrfs.  ■'*  ripuels  de  ol  SwSeKa  padrjTal  tov  Kvplov 
iKXalopxv  Kal  iXvirovpeda,  Kal  ^Kaffros  Xvwovpevos  8id  rb  avp.§dv  din]XXdyr]  eh  rbv  oIkov 
airrov.  ^  iyi^  8i  'Zlpcvv  n^rpos  Kal  Ai/Sp^as  6  d5eX((>6s  pov  Xaj36>Tes  rjpQv  ra  Xlva 
dirrjXdaptev  eh  rrjv  ddXaffcraf   Kal  Jjv  avv  ijpiv  Aeveh  6  roii  AX(paiov,  61/  Kvpios. 


352 


THE  RESURRECTION  APPEARANCES 


III.  Coptic  Document:  translated  from  Schmidt,  SAB.  1895,  pp.  707  f- 
"  Mary,  Martha  and  Mary  Magdelene  go  to  the  grave  to  anoint  the  body. 

Finding  the  grave  empty,  they  are  sorrowful  and  weep.  The  Lord  ap- 
pears to  them  and  says :  '  Why  do  ye  weep,  cease  weeping,  I  am  [he] 
whom  ye  seek.  But  let  one  of  you  go  to  your  brethren  and  say :  '  Come, 
the  Master  is  risen  from  the  dead.'  Martha  went  and  told  it  to  us.  We 
spake  to  her:  'What  hast  thou  to  do  with  us,  O  woman?  He  who  died 
is  buried  and  it  is  not  possible  that  he  lives.'  We  did  not  believe  her, 
that  the  Redeemer  was  risen  from  the  dead.  Then  went  she  to  the  Lord 
and  spake  to  him :  '  None  among  them  believe  me,  that  thou  livest.'  He 
spake :  '  Let  another  of  you  go  to  them  and  tell  it  to  them  again.'  Mary 
went  and  told  it  to  us  again,  and  we  did  not  believe  her.  She  returned 
to  the  Lord,  and  she  likewise  told  it  to  him.  Then  said  the  Lord  to  Mary 
and  her  other  sisters :  '  Let  us  go  to  them.'  And  he  went  and  found 
us  within  and  called  us  outside.  But  we  thought  that  it  was  a  spirit 
{(pavraffla )  and  believed  not,  that  it  was  the  Lord.  Then  spake  he  to 
us:  'Come  and  .  .  .  Thou,  O  Peter,  who  hast  denied  his  [Preuschen, 
<me>]  thrice,  and  dost  thou  deny  even  now?'  We  drew  near  to  him, 
doubting  in  our  hearts  that  perhaps  it  might  not  be  he.  Then  spake  he  to 
us :  '  Why  do  you  still  doubt  and  are  unbelieving?  I  am  he  who  spake  to 
you  about  my  flesh  and  my  death  and  my  resurrection,  that  ye  might  know 
that  I  am  he.  Peter,  lay  thy  finger  in  the  nail-prints  in  my  hands,  and 
thou  Thomas  lay  thy  finger  in  the  spear-thrust  in  my  side,  but  do  thou 
Andrew  touch  my  feet,  thus  thou  seest  that  she  ...  to  those  of  earth. 
For  it  is  written  in  the  prophet,  '  fantacies  of  dreams  ...  on  earth.'  We 
answered  him :  '  We  have  recognized  in  truth,  that  ...  in  the  flesh.' 
And  we  cast  ourselves  on  our  face[s]  and  confessed  our  sins  that  we 
had  been  unbelieving." 

Schmidt  (SAB.  1908,  p.  1055)  thinks  that  the  author  of  the  Greek 
original  knew  the  passage  in  Ignatius  ad  Smyrn.  iii:  ^7"  7ap  "■«'  fJ^To,  r^v 
dvdffTaffiv  iv  aapKi  avrbv  olda  Kai  iriffTefju  ovra.  Kal  Sre  irpbi  tovs  irepl  H^rpov  TfKdev, 
etpT)  airroh-  Xd^ere,  \f/T)\a(piq<Tar4  /xe  Kai  tSere,  6ti  ovk  dfju  8aifJ.6viov  affdifiarov.  Kal 
€v6vs  tti^ToO  iff^avTo  Kai  iniffTevaav,  Kpadivrei  ttj  aapKi  airroO  Kai  ri^  irvev/xaTi.  (cf. 
ad  Trail,  ix).  Cf.  also  Hier.  de  vir.  ill.  xvi ;  Schmidt,  SAB.  1908, 
pp.  1047-1056  and  ThLz.  1910,  p.  796;  Harnack,  Theologische  Studien 
B.  Weiss  dargebracht,  pp.  1-8;  A.  Meyer,  Auferstehung  usw.  pp. 
81  f. ;  M.  R.  James,  JThSt.  1909-10,  pp.  loi,  290,  569;  1910-11,  pp.  55  f . ;  D. 
P.  Bihimeyer,  RBd.  1911,  pp.  270  ff;  Hennecke,  Neutest.  Apokryphen, 
pp.  38  f;  Preuschen,  Antilegomena,  pp.  83  f ;  W.  Bauer,  Leben  Jesu  usw. 
p.  262. 

IV.  The  Syriac  Didascalia  :  translated  from  Achelis  und  Flemming 
in  Gebhardt  u.  Harnack,  TU.  NF.  x.  1904,  p.  107. 

"  Because  then  these  days  and  nights  were  short,  therefore  it  is  written 
thus    [in   the   Old   Testament   quotation    which    precedes].     In   the   night 


THE   RESURRECTION   APPEARANCES  353 

therefore,  as  Sunday  was  breaking,  he  appeared  to  Mary  Magdalene  and 
Mary  the  daughter  of  James,  and  in  the  morning-dawn  of  Sunday  he  en- 
tered into  [the  house  of]  Levi,  and  then  he  appeared  also  to  us." 

The  account  of  the  appearances  follows  an  explanation  of  the  manner  in 
which  the  word  of  Jesus  in  Mt.  xii.  40 — the  Son  Man  must  be  three  days 
in  the  heart  of  the  earth — was  fulfilled ;  afterwards  Jesus  gives  instructions 
concerning  fasting. 

V.  Tertullian,  Apologeticum,  XXI :    Oehler,  i.  pp.  201  flf. 

Ad  doctrinam  vero  eius,  qua  revincebantur  magistri  primoresque  ludaeo- 
rum,  ita  exasperabantur,  maxime  quod  ingens  ad  eum  multitudo  deflecteret, 
ut  postremo  oblatum  Pontio  Pilato,  Syriam  tunc  ex  parte  Romana  pro- 
curanti,  violentia  suffragiorum  in  crucem  lesum  dedi  sibi  extorserint  .  .  . 
Sed  ecce  tertia  die  concussa  repente  terra,  et  mole  revoluta  quae  obstruxe- 
rat  sepulchrum,  et  custodia  pavore  disiecta,  nullis  apparentibus  disci- 
pulis  nihil  in  sepulchro  repertum  est  praeterquam  exuviae  sepulti  .  .  . 
Nam  nee  ille  se  in  vulgus  eduxit,  ne  impii  errore  liberarentur,  ut  et  fides, 
non  mediocri  praemio  destinata,  difficultate  constaret.  Cum  discipulis 
autem  quibusdam  apud  Galilaeam,  ludaeae  regionem,  ad  quadraginta  dies 
egit  docens  eos  quae  docerent.  Dehinc  ordinatis  eis  ad  officium  praedi- 
candi  per  orbem  circumfusa  nube  in  caelum  est  receptus  .  .  .  Ea  omnia 
super  Christo  Pilatus,  et  ipse  iam  pro  sua  conscientia  Christianus,  Caesari 
tunc  Tiberio  nuntiavit. 

VI.  Acta  Pil.ati  :    Tischendorf,  Evangelia  Apocrypha,"  1876. 

B  XV.  5  (p.  321)  f(p7j  irptis  avTovs  6'lu<r'^(f>-  Kord  ttjj'  effir^pav  ttjs  vapaaKeviji,  Hre 
Ijue  iv  <l>v\aK-^  KaTTi(T(pa\i<TaT€,  eireffov  els  irpoffevxTJv  di  dfXijj  rijs  WKrbs  Kal  di  SXt/j  t'^s 
r}pApas  Tov  aa^^drov.  Kal  tov  fuffovvKrlov  opw  rhv  oIkop  t^j  (pvXaKTJi  Sri  ialKUffav 
airrbv  &yye\oi  riaaapei,  dirh  tQv  reffadpuv  yovidv  Kar^ovres  avrdv.  Kal  eiixijXdev  6 
'IrjiTovs  ws  dcrrpaTTri,  Kal  airb  tov  <p6^ov  ftreffov  els  Tr)v  yrjv.  Kpar^ixas  o^v  fie  ttjs  x^'P^s 
fjyeLpe  X&i'cjv  fxi)  cpo^oO,  'luarjip.  elra  irepiKa^uv  KareipCK-qai  px  Kal  X^ec  dviffTpdipov 
Kal  tSe  Ti's  eipLi.  arpacpels  olv  Kal  i5wv  elirov  Kijpie,  oiiK  ol5a  tLs  el.  Xiyei  iKetvos-  iyd?  elpu 
'IrjiTovs,  Sv  TTpoexG^s  iKridevffas.  X^w  irpbs  ainov  Sei^dv  pai  rbv  rdtpov,  koI  rbre  iri<TTev<T<i). 
Xa^Qv  oCv  fu  T7j$  x"P^^  airriyayev  iv  rip  Td<pip  6vti  rjveipy pAvi^ .  Kal  ISoiv  hfw  ttjv 
(Ttcd^va  Kal  rb  ffovddpiov  Kal  yvupltxai  eJirov  eiiXoyTjpidvos  6  ipxbpjevos  iv  6v6pMTi  Kvplov, 
Kal  vpoaeKvvriffa  airrbv.  elra  \a^(t>v  fie  T'^s  x^'P^^i  dKoKovdoiivruv  Kal  tQv  dyyiXwv, 
ijyayev  eU  ' Kpt-pjadlav  iv  rip  otKip  pjov,  Kal  \iyet  pai-  Kddov  ivravOa  ?ws  ripiipas  reffffapd- 
Kovra.  iyo)  ydp  VTrdyu  ei'j  toi)j  pMdrjrds  fwv,  iva  ir\rjpo(popT^<r(i)  airroiis  K-rjpvTTeiv  rrjv 
ipLTiv  dvdffraffiv  [A.  XV.  6  (p.  274)  :  l5oi>  yap  iropeiopuai  irpbs  robs  dde\<f>ovs  pjov  eis  rijv 
Ta\ikalav\.  Cf.  A  xv.  6  (pp.  272  ff.)  ;  Gesta.  xv.  S  (pp.  381  f.)  ;  Narratio 
losephi,  iv.  2  (pp.  467  ff.). 

B.  xiv.  I  (p.  318) :  pued'  r)pApas  bi  6\iyas  ^\dov  dirb  Trjs  Ta\i\alas  els  rd  'Iepoa-6\vp.a 
AvOpwiroi  rpeis-  6  eU  i^  airrwi'  fjv  lepevs  dvopMTi  ^iveis,  6  frepos  XevirTjs  bvbfjuiTi '  Ayyaios, 
Kal  6  Irepos  a-Tpariwr-qs  [A.  xiv.  I  (p.  259)  biddaKaXos]  bvbpMTi  ' A.5ds.  ovtoi  fiXdov 
irpbs  Tovs  dpxi-fpets  Kal  elirov  airrois  Kal  rip  Xa<p-  rbv  'Irjffovv,  6v  vp^ets  iffTavpwffare, 
eibopiev  iv  tj  TaXiKaiq.  p-erd  tuiv  IvSeKa  pjadr)Twv  airrov  eis  rb  5pos  tQ>v  iXaiiov   [A.  xiv.  I 


354 


THE  RESURRECTION  APPEARANCES 


(p.  259)  t6  KaXoifjjivov  Ma/i/Xx-  v.  1.  Ma/*/3i)x»  MaXiJ/c,  Mo0i)k,  Mo/i0^,  Manhre 
sive  Malcch,  Manbre  sive  Amalech,  Mambre,  Mabrech],  SiHcKovra  wpls  av- 
Toiis  Kol  X^ovra-  iroptidriTe  eh  travTo.  rbv  Kdfffwv  Kal  K-qpii^are  rb  eiyy^Xiov,  /cat  6<rTis 
TTiffTeiJffet  Kal  pairTiffdy  a-wdT/iaerai,  6<ttis  8i  oii  niaTevaei  KaraKpidrfffeTai.  Kal  ravra 
\iyuv  Avi^aivev  eh  rbv  oipavbv.  koI  idetapovfuv  Kal  ripueh  Kal  &\\oi  TroXXot  tuv  irev- 
raKOfflwv  iviKSiva.  Cf.  A.  xiv.  I  (pp.  259  f.),  Gesta,  xiv.  I  (p.  372)  ;  B.  xvi. 
2  (p.  322),  A.  xvi.  5  (p.  279),  Gesta,  xvi.  3  (p.  386)  ;  Descensus  Christi,  B. 
i.  [xvii.]  (p.  417).  In  A.  xiii.  i  (p.  255)  the  message  of  the  angel  to  the 
women  at  the  sepulchre  concludes :  Kal  raxv  iropevOetcrai  elirare  roh  /xaOrirah 
avToO  6ti  ijyipd-q  &irb  tQ)v  veKpQv,  Kal  eVriv  iv  rrj  Ta\i\ai<f...  Cf.  also  xiii.  2  (p. 
257),  B.  xiii.  I  (p.  317),  Gesta,  xiii.  i  (p.  369)  ;  Anaphora  Pilati,  A.  9  (p. 
441). 


THE  RESURRECTION  APPEARANCES 


355 


VII.     ABBREVIATIONS. 

AJTIi.  The  American  Journal  of  Theology :  Chicago  University. 

BG.  Beweiss  des  Glaubens :  Zockler  und  Steude. 

BFTh.  Beitrage  zur  Forderung  christ.  Theologie;  Schlatter  u.  Liitgert. 

ChQuRev.  Church   Quarterly   Review ;   A.   C.   Headlam. 

ChrW.  Christliche  Welt:  Rade. 

DCG.  Dictionary  of  Christ  and  the  Gospels :  Hastings. 

EB.  Encyclopedia   Biblica :   Cheyne  and   Black. 

Exp.  Expositor  :  R.  Nicoll. 

HE.  Handbuch  zum  Neuen  Testament :  Lietzmann. 

HC.  Hand-Commentar  zum  Neuen  Testament :  H.  J.  Holtzmann. 

HJ.  Hibbert  Journal :  L.  P.  Hicks. 

HThR.  The  Harvard  Theological  Review :  Harvard  University. 

ICC.  International  Crit.  Commentary :  Briggs,  Driver  and  Plummer. 

JBL.  Journal  of  Biblical  Literature:  Society  of  Bibl.  Lit.  and  Exeg. 

JThSt,  Journal  of  Theological  Studies :   Bethune-Baker. 

KIT.  Kleine  Texte  :  Lietzmann. 

MK.  Kritisch-exegetischer  Kommentar   iiber  das   Neue  Testament 

begriindet  von  H.  A.  W.  Meyer. 

NkZ.  Neue  kirchliche  Zeitschrift :  Engelhardt. 

OC.  The   Open   Court:   Open   Court   Publishing  Company. 

PrM.  Protestantische  Monatshefte  :  Websky. 

PrThR.  The  Princeton  Theological  Review :  Princeton. 

RBd.  Revue  Benedictine  :  Maredsous. 

RGG.  Religion  in  Geschichte  und  Gegenwart :  Schiele  u.  Zscharnack. 

RHLR.  Revue  d'Histoire  et  de  litterature  religieuses :  £mile  Nourry. 

SAB.  Sitzungsberichte  d.  konigl.  preuss.  Akad.  d.  Wiss.  zu  Berlin. 

SNT.  Die  Schriften  des  Neuen  Testaments :  J.  Weiss. 

StBE.  Studia  Biblica  et  Ecclesiastica :  Clarendon  Press. 

ThLBl.  Theologische  Literaturblatt :  Ihmels. 

ThLc.  Theologische  Literaturzeitung :  Schiirer  und  Harnack. 

ThQ.  Theologische  Quartalschrift :  Belser. 

ThR.  Theologische  Rundschau :  Bousset  und  Heitmiiller. 

TliStKr.  Theologische  Studien  und  Kritiken :  Kattenbusch  und  Loofs. 

ThT.  Theologisch  Tijdschrift:  B.  D.  Eerdmans. 

TU.  Texte  und  Untersuchungen :  Gebhardt  und  Harnack. 

ZK.  Kommentar  zum  Neuen  Testament :  Th.  Zahn. 

ZNW.  Zeitschrift  fiir  die  neutest.  Wissenschaft :  Preuschen. 

ZThK.  Zeitschrift  fiir  Theologie  und  Kirche :  Herrmann  und  Rade. 

ZzvTh.  Zeitschrift  fiir  wissenschaftliche  Theologie :  A.  Hilgenfekl. 


•..•.•Ni>.--  ,.-•;,  .:   . ■,   _« 


■'V  -■  r  '••-■ 


Date  Due 

^•^^■'^/:. 

'  / 

T>^ 

f 

f:/^A 

<^' 

/    ■ 

c 

/ 

'^'mS^mSSitm 

B 

PitBCfif^^ 

-"JJI**" 

1 
i  ■ 

(|) 

BS2428 .A73 

The  place  of  the  resurrection  ' 

I n I,'."'"'" ".I^'°l??'^^'  Seminary-Speer  Library 


1    1012  00082  5200 


vV 

, 

- 

-  V 

>!' 

^ 

'» 

A,. 

'•^ 

\V,/.'' 

<^ 

V 

*■   > 

fc.-^ 

7 

."; :"-  ^ 

' 

1 

